Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

TOR BAY HARBOUR (TORQUAY MARINA &c.) BILL

(Changed from TOR BAY HARBOUR (TORQUAY MARINA etc.) BILL)

COMMONS REGISTRATION (GLAMORGAN) BILL

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

SHREWSBURY AND ATCHAM BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

TEES AND HARTLEPOOL PORT AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 14 April.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Mr. Speaker: Yesterday I appealed for shorter supplementary questions and answers. I make the same appeal today.

Credit Cards

Mr. Brotherton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce measures to control the use of credit cards.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jock Bruce-Gardyne): No.

Mr. Brotherton: Is my hon. Friend aware of the plethora of plastic that dominates the country's economy? Does he not agree that it would be a good idea if a small taxation charge were levied on outstanding credit card debts every month? It would be a way of raising revenue and reducing the amount of credit floating round the country.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I assure my hon. Friend that the Government are always grateful for suggestions to fortify the Revenue. Unfortunately, a tax on credit card borrowing would be rather difficult to justify or to administer if no such tax were charged on overdrafts, hire

purchase agreements, budget accounts or other forms of consumer credit. The likely outcome of such a tax on one form of credit, unfortunately, would be to shift the business to another form of credit.

Mr. Skinner: Is not the Minister in a bit of a predicament when he talks about controlling the use of credit cards and introducing a tax element, particularly as the Government in the past few months, prodded by the Prime Minister, have allowed a wide credit card system, to the tune of $600 million, to be used by Argentina? Instead of putting a tax on the credit card system, the Government have suggested that the banks should get tax relief on the debts that have been incurred from the countries whose loans are being rescheduled.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: There is later on the Order Paper a question that is more germane to the point that the hon. Gentleman is trying to raise. Perhaps it will he better to discuss it then.

Mr. Nelson: Is my hon. Friend aware that about 30 million cheque and guarantee cards are circulating in this country? In view of the frightening and growing incidence of the fraudulent use of credit cards, is my hon. Friend satisfied that the scrutiny and control exercised by the Government, the police, the clearing banks and primarily the credit card issuers are satisfactory?

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: The answer to my hon. Friend's question is basically no. There is a serious problem of fraud. However, that is a matter for the banks and the credit card companies. The companies are making determined efforts to combat fraud and are continually exploring new means of doing that. Responsibility, in the first instance, must rest with them.

Budget (Economic Recovery)

Mr. Knox: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the effect of his Budget on the recovery of the economy from the recession.

Mr. Neubert: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the representations he has received since his Budget statement.

Mr. James Lamond: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received as to the impact of his Budget proposals on the prospects for the recovery of the economy.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Geoffrey Howe): The Budget has been widely welcomed for its help to business, to people and for recovery and jobs.

Mr. Knox: As my right hon. and learned Friend has for some time expressed confidence that the economy is recovering from the recession, is he not disappointed that there are as yet no signs of a reduction in the number of unemployed? When does he expect that to happen?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend knows that the Government's policies are directed to securing just such a reduction, but that unemployment is the last of the features of economic activity to respond. I am sure that my hon. Friend will take encouragement from the fact that demand in the United Kingdom has risen by 4·5 per cent. since the spring of 1981, that manufacturing output rose


by 3·5 per cent. between November and January, that activity in the construction industry has substantially increased and that there are many other such signs.

Mr. Neubert: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the best tribute that could be paid to the solid, sensible and realistic Budget that he has just introduced is to compare it with the economic crisis in France? The crisis brought the President to the television screen last night to announce drastic new measures after he had spent two years following policies that are constantly being advocated, with increasing fervour, by the Opposition.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend has made a very impressive point. It is most striking that many of the policies still espoused by the Labour party are being wisely rejected by a Socialist Government in France.

Mr. James Lamond: Given the Chancellor of the Exchequer's strong statements about the Labour party's proposal to devalue the pound if it came to power, does the pound's latest position cause the right hon. and learned Gentleman concern?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The important feature to remember about the pound and its position in relation to our economic policies is that we have in place policies governing the growth of the money supply, the growth of Government borrowing, and fiscal balance, which are sound and firmly based. It is also worth remembering that although one is sometimes inclined to concentrate on the exchange rate between the pound and the dollar, any inspection of the relationship between the pound and the other currencies in Europe shows that the pound has strengthened very substantially against most of them and has fallen since the inception of the EMS by only 7 per cent. even against the deutschmark, which is the strongest of those currencies.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer not aware that Government borrowing, as a percentage of gross domestic product, has increased over the past two years in all the major European economies—with the exception of ours—and also in the United States of America? The Chancellor's Budget Red Book this year comments on the economies of the rest of the world showing signs of moderate recovery, falling interest rates and falling inflation. Why does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman take a lesson from that for the Government's borrowing requirement?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The important lesson to be drawn is that my counterpart in France was last week seeking to claim credit for the fact that his public sector deficit was the second largest in the industrial countries, but that this week, for the second time in less than 12 months, he is taking a series of measures to reduce that deficit substantially.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that most manufacturing industry accepts that the pound is now at a much more realistic level that will enable our industry to compete? Does he further accept that most people would agree, that he was quite right not to make hasty interventions in the foreign exchange markets, which would only damage this country's financial credibility?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I take careful note of my hon. Friend's observations and advice.

Mr. Peter Shore: The Chancellor's initial response contained the staggering statement that the Budget had been widely welcomed. Were there any representatives of retirement pensioners or the unemployed among those who widely welcomed it? Given the recent and further devaluation of the pound—in the absence of any price offsetting measures—does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman now think that the figure of 6 per cent. for the rate of inflation at the end of this year should probably be at least 7 per cent? If so, does it not make it even more outrageous that the Chancellor should still stick to his decision to underpay 9 million or more pensioners by giving them a 4 per cent. increase in November of this year?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: There is no reason whatever to take the view offered by the right hon. Gentleman about the prospect of inflation by the end of the year. Pensioners are grateful for the fact that the method for uprating pensions will now be put on a firm basis and will not be dependent on forecasts. They also take note of the fact that under this Government the real value of pensions will have increased by 5 per cent., and that the real value of child benefit will have increased by 12 per cent. The main thrust of the Budget has been warmly and specifically welcomed by all the representatives of British industry. One sign of that welcome is to be seen in the decisions now being taken in relation to future investment in the North Sea.

Employment Opportunities

Mr. Cryer: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what impact his policies have had on the creation of employment opportunities.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Leon Brittan): The Government's balanced fiscal and monetary policies, along with lower pay settlements, are the essential prerequisites for sustainable improvements in employment.

Mr. Cryer: Is it not true that the average person's tax burden is higher under this Government than it was under the Labour Government in 1979? Is it not also true that the only people to benefit from the Government's tax policies are the wealthy, who have been busy shovelling money abroad at the rate of over £9 billion in less than three years due to the removal of exchange controls? Instead of investing in British manufacturing industry, they have invested their money anywhere for a fast buck. Do not those policies mean—on the Chancellor's own figures—that 1,000 people per day will join the dole queue in the next 12 months?

Mr. Brittan: If the hon. Gentleman wants to make comparisons, he should note that real net income after tax and national insurance contributions is up on the 1979 figure at all levels, assuming that earnings have risen in line with the average. He should also bear in mind that, in terms of percentage points, the tax burden under the Labour Government greatly exceeded that of the present Government.

Mr. Forman: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the importance of creating employment opportunities for part-time work? Is he further aware that the Chancellor's recent Budget, with its part-time job release scheme, was very much a step in the right


direction? Will my right hon. and learned Friend see to it that his Department does even more to encourage part-time work?

Mr. Brittan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks about that aspect of the Chancellor's Budget and
I entirely agree that the move to facilitate and encourage part-time employment in that way is to be welcomed, both in terms of employment and as a reflection of social trends.

Mr. Jay: Is it not now painfully clear that the Government's blunder in abolishing exchange controls is keeping interest rates much too high?

Mr. Brittan: That is a strange observation from a party that takes the right hon. Gentleman's view about the exchange rate.

Mr. Maclennan: What is the Chief Secretary's view of the impact on unemployment of the slump in the value of the pound against the basket of currencies? It is standing at the lowest level for six years. Does he propose to take measures to offset the ensuing price impact?

Mr. Brittan: The hon. Gentleman will have heard my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer give the true position of the value of the pound. He will also have heard the view expressed that, whatever the total advantages and disadvantages, if British industry avails itself of the opportunity provided by a fall in the value of the pound there are advantages to be gained in terms of jobs.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there is now quite a variety of schemes to help the unemployed and that one of the best is the enterprise allowance? It makes sense to give those starting businesses on their own help with their living expenses for the first year. Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that we welcome the fact that the scheme is being extended to the whole country?

Mr. Brittan: The enterprise allowance, which was originally introduced on a pilot basis, has proved successful. There have been about 2,000 successful applications in the very small pilot area. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor said, the time has come to extend this scheme more widely throughout the country.

Budget (Taxation Levels)

Mr. Straw: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received as to the effect the Budget measures have had upon the level of taxation as a proportion of earnings in respect of those on average earnings and below and as compared with the relevant proportions in 1978–79.

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. John Wakeham): For those on average earnings, income tax is a lower proportion now than in 1978–79. For some of those below average earnings, the proportion taken in tax is higher, but the Budget will benefit those on lower pay. Income tax and national insurance contributions together take a higher proportion than in 1978–79, but the real take-home pay of all those whose earnings have increased in line with the national average has increased.

Mr. Straw: Is the Minister aware that even his first answer does not tally with calculations made by the Library, which show that a family man on average

earnings is still bearing a higher burden in terms of income tax alone—let alone the burden of national insurance and income tax combined—compared with 1978–79? Has the Chief Secretary seen the figures published by the Institute of Fiscal Studies, which show that a jobless man has lost £15 in real terms under this Government, that a man on £130 per week has lost £8, while someone earning £45,000 per year has benefited by the obscene sum of £120 per week? Is that the sort of fair society that the Government were elected to produce?

Mr. Wakeham: Thresholds are up by some 5 per cent. since my right hon. and learned Friend's first Budget. The standard rate of tax is some 3 per cent. down. The figures that were reported widely in the press yesterday were after the large increases made by my right hon. and learned Friend in 1979–80 and before the increases made in the last Budget.

Treasury (Personnel Statistics)

Sir David Price: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people are currently employed in Her Majesty's Treasury; and of them how many have any personal professional experience of manufacture or of commerce.

Mr. Brittan: At 1 March 1983 there were 3,995 staff employed in the Treasury. A substantial proportion of staff employed at all grades have had personal professional experience of manufacture or commerce. At principal level or above, some 18 per cent. have had or are currently getting this experience. The Government greatly welcome this growing trend.

Sir David Price: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that those figures show a welcome improvement over the last time that I asked that question? Will he encourage the Treasury staff department to ensure that more Treasury officials have the experience of being out in the cold, competitive world of commerce and manufacturing?

Mr. Brittan: That is important and I agree with my hon. Friend.

Sir William Clark: How many professional accountants are there in the Treasury?

Mr. Brittan: I shall write to my hon. Friend to give him that answer.

Argentina (Bank Loan)

Mr. Newens: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has given any advice to British banks about their involvement in a consortium of foreign banks which is seeking to negotiate the new medium term loan to Argentina following the Argentine decision to suspend repayment on nearly £1,000 million of its foreign debt.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: No, Sir. This must be a matter for the individual banks concerned. The swap facilities, to which I assume the hon. Gentleman refers in the latter part of his question, form part of the foreign debt obligations of Argentina which are the subject of negotiations currently in progress between that country and international banks.

Mr. Newens: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that there are no conditions attached to the loan to prevent the


Argentine Government from using it to purchase arms, and that recently the Almirante Brown has been delivered, replete with British components, along with 70 Mirage III or Dagger jet fighters? Numerous other items are on order. Is it not a disgrace that the Government are prepared to finance the rearming of Fascist Argentina?

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: The part of the hon. Gentleman's question relating to Argentina's recent acquisition of frigates is not a matter for the Treasury—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".] There is no shortage of arms sellers around the world. We would not deny the Argentines the opportunity of purchasing arms by driving Argentina into default.

Mr. Newens: Really. What a disgrace.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: It is clear that this loan is an integral part of the IMF programme for Argentina which puts tight controls on Argentina's public finances. If Argentina diverted money to buy more arms that could jeopardise the IMF programme and hence Argentina's ability for future drawings.

Mr. James Lamond: Disgraceful.

Mr. McCrindle: On the more general point, is it the Government's view that no one economy can be allowed to disintegrate without a substantial knock-on effect on its neighbours and, ultimately, on the whole international economic scene? In those circumstances, does my hon. Friend agree that the Government have no alternative but to pursue their policies irrespective of their views of the regime in Buenos Aires?

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: My hon. Friend is entirely right. We are a major trading nation and we depend upon exports for a larger proportion of our total output than do most other major trading nations and upon a steady expansion of international trade. A default that was triggered in Argentina by a failure to resolve the immediate problems of Argentina's indebtedness could have repercussions in other countries and serious implications for international trade that would be seriously to our disadvantage.

Mr. Dalyell: To borrow the Minister's graphic phrase of last year, is not this a mug's game?

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: No, Sir. It would be a mug's game to perform otherwise.

Mr. Eggar: If Argentina were to default, would that not mean that British banks would have to write off considerable loans? [Interruption.] Before the Opposition jump for joy, will my hon. Friend confirm that the effect would be a reduction in their capital base which would mean that they would find difficulty in lending to domestic companies? Would that not mean a reduction in jobs?

Mr. Cryer: I think that the hon. Gentleman is a merchant banker.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The propositions advanced by the Opposition would be damaging to international trade and to the structure of international banking and would ultimately have repercussions on employment.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of Tuesday's report in the Financial Times, that despite Argentina's reduction in interest arrears, the conditions for the $1.5 billion loan have not yet been settled? As the

Prime Minister has stated categorically that the money is not being lent to purchase armaments, why is that not to be a condition of the loan?

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: As the right hon. Gentleman knows well, international arms trading is conducted on credit which is not necessarily pervious to the consequences of such banking negotiations. All the arrangements that are being conducted by the IMF are designed to ensure that Argentina, like other countries with debt problems, pursues correction policies that will enable it to settle its debts and not involve itself in additional outgoings that it could not meet.

Mr. Newens: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of that disgraceful Pontius Pilate-like reply, I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There can be no further point of order on that point of order except to the extent that it was not expressed in the usual language.

Mr. Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I give notice that I intend to raise this matter tonight on the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill.

Budget (Tax Thresholds)

Mr. Eggar: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received following his Budget about the personal tax thresholds.

Mr. Brittan: My right hon. and learned Friend's proposals have been welcomed warmly by my hon. Friends and, I believe, by the country as a whole.

Mr. Eggar: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the increase in thresholds has been welcomed by the low-paid and widows? Will he confirm that a major objectivee of the next Conservative Government will be to take further action against the unemployment and poverty traps?

Mr. Brittan: I have observed the warm welcome given to these proposals by those to whom my hon. Friend referred. I agree that our objectives should be to make further progress in that direction.

Mr. Straw: Is the reality that, despite the change thresholds for people on average earnings are still lower in real terms than they were when the Government came to power? The burden of direct taxation for the poorest families in work—those on half-average earnings—has increased by nearly 50 per cent. in real terms since the Government came to power. How does that square with the promises in the Chief Secretary's election manifesto that there would be reductions in taxation at all levels of income?

Mr. Brittan: The hon. Gentleman, as always, is highly selective and not entirely accurate. The thresholds are 5 per cent. in real terms above the 1978–79 level.

Mr. Ralph Howell: While I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor that the problems of the unemployment and poverty trap have been getting worse for the past 30 years, is he aware that many Conservative Members are not satisfied that sufficient progress is being


made in this area? Can my right hon. and learned Friend assure us that he will find a way out of this problem in less than 30 years?

Mr. Brittan: Sufficient progress is rarely made, but substantial progress has been made. As for the next 30 years, that is perhaps five years longer than the time scale on which I think we should operate.

National Income

Mr. Cook: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he anticipates that national income will return to its level of May 1979.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: GDP is likely to return to its level of the first half of 1979 before the end of this year. Real national disposable income, which takes into account changes in the terms of trade, was already well above the level of the first half of 1979 by the second half of last year.

Mr. Cook: Will the Chancellor accept that the compromise wage average of the three GDP indexes shows a 4 per cent. fall in the past four years? Will he accept that talk of recovery is misplaced until the economy at least recovers to the point where it was before he got to work on it? Will he confirm that every previous post-war Government achieved a substantial growth in GDP? As he is given to blaming his predecessors, will he say how content he is about doing so much worse than the Administration of the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), whom he is given to rebuking at length in the House?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman understands very well that GDP growth has either come to a halt or fallen in almost every other industrial country in the Western world. In our economy we offer the prospect of an increase of about 2 per cent. this year, which is ahead of what is on offer in many other countries. A number of indicators suggest that growth is moving forward. I have drawn attention to the substantial increase of 3½ per cent. in manufacturing output in the two months from November to January.

Budget (Unemployment)

Mr. James Hamilton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about the effect of his Budget statement on unemployment; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Brittan: There have, as always, been a wide variety of comments on all aspects of the Budget, most of which have been made publicly rather than in the form of specific representations to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Excehequer.

Mr. Hamilton: Will the Chief Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer recognise that, faced with the worst recession since the 1930s and with 3·2 million plus unemployed, many living below the poverty level, the measures taken are a sham and will not, under any circumstances, solve unemployment, which is devastating for many people?

Mr. Brittan: I do not accept that analysis of the Budget. The vast majority of people will accept that, within a responsible fiscal framework, my right hon. and

learned Friend has been able to put forward measures to assist the construction industry and to encourage small businesses. The measures have already led to further investment in the North sea. At the same time, the Budget has reduced business costs. I regard that not as a sham but as a substantial contribution to recovery.

Mr. Waller: Will my right hon. and learned Friend acknowledge the good response to the encouragement given in the Budget by his right hon. and learned Friend to company employee share schemes? Is he aware that there is sound evidence, especially from the United States, that companies with such incentive schemes perform better than those that do not have them and that they can offer better employment opportunities for the future?

Mr. Brittan: That evidence is, I believe, real. It is certainly a direction in which we want to move. I am glad that we have been able to take steps in that direction this year.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that last week there was great bitterness in Stockport about the unfairness of the Budget towards the unemployed, but that this week there is even greater bitterness because redundancies have continued to rise, with 300 announced at Bowater in Stockport? Why did the Government not include in the Budget some help for what remains of the paper industry, through a favourable fuelling price?

Mr. Brittan: I am not pretending that the Budget was able to prevent every unfavourable development in every part of the country. On unemployment, there is no doubt that the measures to assist industry directly in the case of the construction industry, through the tax system in the case of North sea oil, and the encouragement of investment through the business expansion scheme, the reduction of the national insurance surcharge and the reduction in corporation tax for smaller businesses, are all supremely relevant to job opportunities.

Mr. Proctor: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the considerable support given to his proposals for free ports? As these will entail considerable nurnbers of new real jobs, can he say how soon a free port will he established in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Brittan: I am well aware of the considerable interest in that aspect of my right hon. and learned Friend's proposals. I am not able to give any further information about dates at this stage.

Mr. Shore: The substance of the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mr. Hamilton) was about the impact of the Budget on unemployment. Will the Chief Secretary now confirm that, even if the growth targets in the Red Book are achieved, the number of people out of work in Britain after his Budget and by the end of this year will be an additional 300,000 over and above the present 3½ million unemployed?

Mr. Brittan: I do not accept those figures at all. I do not believe, faced with what on any view is serious unemployment, that a useful contribution is made tc the discussion by presenting, as Opposition Members have consistently done, grossly inflated figures of the reality.

Exchange Rates

Mr. Dubs: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his policy on exchange rates has been affected by recent falls in oil prices.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: No, Sir.

Mr. Dubs: Does the Minister agree that the Government's policy on exchange rates has vacillated over the past 12 months between keeping sterling steady and letting it slide? What is his present view, and why?

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I do not for one moment accept what the hon. Gentleman says. My right hon. and learned Friend's policy throughout has been that we should pursue domestic monetary and fiscal policies that ensure a coherent and solid basis for future Government finance, which will be reflected over the medium term in the level of the exchange rate. Of course, the exchange rate is subject to passing fluctuations due to speculation about oil prices and the like. It is not within the power of this Government or any other Government to determine precisely how those short-term fluctuations will move. What we have to ensure—and we have done it—is that the basic fiscal and monetary postures of the Government are such as to ensure, in the long run, that the exchange rate remains firm.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Do not Treasury Ministers hug themselves with delight and relief when they recall that Britain has a freely floating currency and is therefore exempt from the crises and quarrels by which those who have not, such as members of the EMS, have been wracked?

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I am not sure that I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that Treasury Ministers should hug themselves with relief over anything. I agree with him that the recent experience of the European exchange rate mechanism exposes the fragility of attempts to maintain particular exchange rates against the current market pressures.

Mr. Nelson: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind, when some right hon. and hon. Members suggest that we are exempt from such crises, that one reason why interest rates in this country are not only very high in real terms, but are substantially above the current and prospective rate of inflation, is that we have had to maintain the exchange value of sterling? Does he accept that if it were not for that, there would be some prospect of earlier economic and industrial recovery and that there is therefore a case for us joining the European monetary system and having some mechanism other than interest rates alone to ensure that the value of sterling is maintained?

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I am not sure that I agree with my hon. Friend that the experience of the French, for example, suggests that membership of the monetary mechanism enables one to avoid interest rates being higher than they otherwise would be. The policy of the Government towards interest rates, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has consistently made clear, is that they are determined by our assessment of domestic monetary conditions. That remains the case.

Mr. Shore: I thought that the Government's policy was basically to leave the oil price and, indeed, the exchange rate to underlying market forces, allowing for temporary

action. Will he confirm that this is the case? Does he agree that the pursuit of these policies over the past 12 months means that we have depreciated against the dollar by 18 per cent., against the yen by 20 per cent. and against the deutschmark by 17 per cent? Will he give the assurance that it is not his intention artificially to prop up the level of the pound, as his hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) suggests, by artificially high interest rates?

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Government do not intend to follow the example of his right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) who, in 1977, attempted to use domestic monetary policy to organise the exchange rate. Of course, it is true that the exchange rate in the short term is substantially influenced by a wide range of factors, including expectations of oil prices and expectations of United States interest rates policy, over which we have no control. It is clear that the Government will not pursue the right hon. Gentleman's advice and try artificially to lower the exchange rate by promising policies of complete economic irresponsibility, because the market would draw its own conclusions.

Theatrical Enterprises

Mr. Nicholas Baker: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received about the tax treatment of individuals who invest in theatrical enterprises.

Mr. Wakeham: I am aware that the report of the Select Committee on public and private funding of the arts has recommended that a loss from casual investment in the theatre by an individual should be allowed for tax against his other income.
The Government are considering the report, but it would be difficult to justify a special tax rule for that particular type of investment activity.

Mr. Baker: Is my hon. Friend aware of the critical state of the British theatre? Rather than changing VAT rules, does he agree that there would be a substantial incentive for people to invest if losses from investments in theatrical enterprises could be offset against other income and if profits were treated as earned rather than unearned?

Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend's proposition would not assist the subsidised theatre, because charitable trusts are not able to attract private investment, as they cannot distribute the profits. I recommend that the commercial theatre carefully examines my right hon. and learned Friend's recent Budget, which provides considerable assistance to small businesses which, I believe, could be used well by the theatre.

Mr. Skinner: Will the Minister confirm that if he introduces any measures to grant tax relief to people who invest in theatrical enterprises he will not include the latest developments of those who are engaged in breakfast television, such as his hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) who is now the boss of TV-AM? But then again, that is not theatre, but has turned out to be farce.

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman asks a hypothetical question.

Mr. Montgomery: Has my hon. Friend noticed the number of empty theatres in the west end of London? Does that not show the problem that producers are having in raising the necessary money? Does he agree that a more helpful policy, allowing losses to be offset, would be of enormous benefit to west end theatres?

Mr. Wakeham: I understand my hon. Friend's point, but the fact remains that the investor is not carrying on a trade but simply advancing money in the hope of obtaining a return. Any loss is therefore from investment, not trading. To widen that would cause a substantial problem.

Mr. Arnold: Is it not high time that that type of activity was regarded as carrying on a trade?

Mr. Wakeham: When such activity can justifiably be considered as carrying on a trade, it is treated as such. That does not apply to the "angels" as they are referred to in the theatrical world. I see no prospect of changing that.

Construction Industry

Mr. Greenway: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has received any representations from the construction industry concerning his Budget proposals; and if he will make a statement.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I received a number of such representations, which I took into account in reaching my Budget judgment.

Mr. Greenway: I welcome the measures that my right hon. and learned Friend has taken in his Budget to help the construction industry. Will he reconsider the imposition of VAT on house maintenance and repairs, because removal of that would stimulate employment in the construction industry and help the Government's excellent home improvement programme?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Of course I shall consider any suggestions that my hon. Friend advances but I should not like to give rise to any expectations of that type. I am grateful to him for his tribute to the improving performance of the construction industry. In the year to the end of 1982, construction output increased by 6·5 per cent., new orders increased by 15 per cent. and private housing output increased by 33 per cent. Total housing starts have risen by 47 per cent. since the last quarter of 1981 and are now above the level that was reached at the beginning of 1979.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Coal Industry

Mr. Eggar: asked the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on the future of the coal industry.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): There is an excellent future for the coal industry provided that it can tackle its fundamental problems and produce coal at a competitive price. Our proven coal reserves will last 300 years at present rates of extraction.
Since we took office the taxpayer has given the industry more than £1,600 million in grants and approved more than £3,000 million in capital investment.
The Selby coalfield is expected to start production in the next few weeks and should achieve productivity levels that are five times the present national average. I also

welcome my right hon. Friend's decision on Asfordby. It removes an obstacle to new investment and new jobs in the mining industry.

Mr. Eggar: Does not my right hon. Friend's answer show that the Government have stuck rigidly by their obligations under "Plan for Coal"? Is it not unfortunate that Mr. Scargill and the National Union of Mineworkers have agreed to less than one third of the proposed closures in "Plan for Coal"? Is it reasonable to expect the taxpayer to go on subsidising the coal industry to that extent if the union is not prepared to honour its undertakings?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is quite right. There were two parts to "Plan for Coal" which was published in 1974. One part concerned investment, which the Government have more than honoured, the other was an agreement that exhausted capacity should be closed at about the rate of 3 million tonnes a year. So far, such capacity has been closed at a rate of only 1 million tonnes a year and the productivity expectations have yet to be fulfilled.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: Is the Prime Minister aware that it is suggested that there is a contractual arrangement between the National Coal Board and Mr. MacGregor by which Mr. MacGregor, in return for offering some 5,000 hours of work, will receive a payment of £1–5 million, which seems to work out at about £5 a minute? Does the Prime Minister consider that to be above or below the going rate for the job?

The Prime Minister: I have, as yet, no statement to make about Mr. MacGregor. One will be made as soon as possible. The figure that the hon. Gentleman mentioned is about the same as the losses of the Coal Board per day.

Sir Bernard Braine: Since my right hon. Friend returned from her successful mission for our country—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ought to remind the hon. Gentleman that this question is about the coal industry. It is not an open question.

Mr. Latham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Government's decision about Asfordby has been widely welcomed locally and that we must now get on to sort out environmental problems?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I believe that the decision takes full account of the environmental problems and the need to provide new jobs. It is the best decision under all the circumstances.

Dr. Edmund Marshall: Will the Prime Minister initiate a full-scale top-level inquiry into the future of Thorne colliery in my constituency, where the recommencement of coal production would provide many jobs in an area which the right hon. Lady knows is an unemployment black spot? Is she aware that I received a letter today from the chairman of the NCB saying that the underground redevelopment of that colliery has come to a full stop and that one of the reasons for that is the constraint on capital expenditure available to the board?

The Prime Minister: Where investment goes and into which collieries is a matter for the National Coal Board. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, this Government's record in providing new investment for coal exceeds that of the Labour Government and is quite excellent.

Pratt's Bottom

Mr. Stanbrook: asked the Prime Minister if she will pay an official visit to Pratt's Bottom.

The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so, although I know Pratts Bottom well because I used to live within walking distance. Will my hon. Friend please give my warm regards to the people there?

Mr. Stanbrook: Is my right hon. Friend aware that her reply, notwithstanding her good wishes, will be deeply disappointing to the villagers of Pratt's Bottom? Is she aware that they seek an early opportunity to express to her their appreciation of the benefits of the Budget—[Interruption.]—in which they are keenly interested, especially the raising of the tax threshold and the further relief given to mortgagees?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's warm and fully justified praise for my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget. I am especially grateful for his praise of the extra relief on mortgages. In the Greater London area, about 23 per cent. of first-time house purchasers, and about 30 per cent. of those not buying for the first time, have mortgage loans above the former tax relief limit. The extra relief is well deserved.

Mr. Christopher Price: Is the Prime Minister aware that, were she to visit Pratt's Bottom, she would be in P district of the Metropolitan police area and that, to get there, she would have to drive through my constituency down the Bromley road? Is she aware that if she happened to stop on Bromley road, get out of her car and talk to my constituents about the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, she would find them enormously encouraged by the remarks of her right hon. Friend the Home Secretary from the Dispatch Box on Tuesday—when she was, unhappily, away—to the effect that the Government intend to withdraw two clauses from the Bill because they know that it will be rejected by the bishops and judges in the House of Lords? Will she tell us about the Government's exact intentions in respect of that Bill now that it has fallen into such contempt on both sides of the House?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has audibly dissented from the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of his remarks when I was away on Tuesday. The hon. Gentleman will accept that the Bill was based on the findings of a Royal Commission. He will also accept that we wish to fight crime with every possible legitimate weapon, and it is important that we should be denied neither the means of identification nor the means of proof for fighting those crimes.

Engagements

Mr. Heddle: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 24 March.

The Prime Minister: This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I shall be attending a dinner given by President Kaunda.

Mr. Heddle: Does my right hon. Friend agree that for far too long teacher training courses have contained too many irrelevant and spurious subjects such as sociology

and psychology? Does she agree that the timely announcement earlier this week by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science will better equip teachers to teach children real subjects that will be of practical benefit to them in the real world? Will she undertake to bring forward the White Paper proposals as early as possible?

The Prime Minister: I welcome my right hon. Friend's White Paper on the training of teachers. There is an opportunity to improve teaching in our schools, to secure a match of teachers' qualifications with the shortage subjects, which is most important, and to assess what really matters, which is their competence in the classroom. Those things will be done and will be warmly welcomed in the country.

Mr. Foot: Perhaps the Prime Minister can help us by clearing up the confusion created by some answers that we heard earlier this afternoon from Treasury spokesmen about loans to Argentina. Can she confirm that talks on the legal conditions of the loan have proved difficult, as was reported in a newspaper a few days ago? Have those difficulties been created by the British Government because they are trying, at last, to lay down conditions about the expenditure of that money on arms?

The Prime Minister: I remember the right hon. Gentleman saying from that Dispatch Box that it was no earthly good trying to lay down such conditions, but his question now is completely different. We supported the loans from the IMF to Argentina on certain stringent conditions. There are two commercial loans to which different conditions apply. We supported the loans for two reasons. First, in the absence of either an IMF loan or commercial loans there was a possibility that Argentina would default. If it did so, it would have far more money to spend on arms than if it met the debt. [Interruption.] I am afraid that that is a fact of life. Furthermore, unless Argentina receives some help, it could default to third countries and, therefore, trigger off the collapse of the difficult and delicate packages that were agreed between the IMF and those countries. Therefore, it was in our interests to do what we did, both through the IMF and through the agreement of two commercial loans under different circumstances.

Mr. Foot: Does the right hon. Lady stand by her statement of 27 January that the money has not been lent for arms? Is it not the case that, under the plans that she is now apparently allowing to go ahead, the money may be spent on arms? Does she take account of the fact that, according to recent reports, up to £6 million of Argentina's £38 million foreign debt is believed to have been spent on defence? Is she aware that Argentina has greatly increased its arms supplies, some of which may have been paid for with British money?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has still not taken note of my first point. The alternative was that Argentina may default. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman may not like it, but if a country defaults on all its debts, much more money is released that could pay for arms than would have been the case if that country was held to repaying its debts. That is obvious.

Mr. David Steel: Has the Prime Minister had time to see the study by the Association for the Conservation of Energy, which suggested that 150,000 new jobs could be


created in energy conservation? Is it not deplorable that the Secretary of State for Energy is suppressing the policy unit report from his Department? Will she ensure that the Select Committee on Energy receives a proper Government reply to this proposal?

The Prime Minister: I do not believe that 150,000 new jobs could be created in that way. There is already much conservation of energy in Britain, for good and obvious reasons. With the sharp increases in the price of oil, coal and electricity that we have had, people must insulate their houses and industrialists must introduce processes that require less energy and equipment that conserves energy to a much greater extent. That conservation has led to a substantial reduction in the use of energy in this country. There are special grants to old people to insulate their homes.

Sir Bernard Braine: Since my right hon. Friend's highly successful mission abroad for our country, has her attention been drawn to the deportation last week of a young Romanian, especially to the way in which he was forcibly returned, despite last-minute pleas from Members of Parliament? Is she further aware that he could not speak English when he first arrived here in April 1982, but that it was months before the British-Romanian Association was told of his existence and that that association believes

his case? Is she also aware that there appears to have been no consultation with the Foreign Office, which knows about the conditions in iron curtain countries and which may even consider that there has been a breach of the international convention on refugees? Does not my right hon. Friend think that these circumstances warrant the most careful review and examination of what happened to ensure that it does not happen again?

The Prime Minister: I know that my hon. Friend feels very strongly about this.

Mr. Ennals: And the rest of us, too.

The Prime Minister: I read what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said and noticed that at the outset he made the point that this country has an excellent record in awarding refugee status, and will continue to have an excellent record, as has been shown by our treatment of the Polish people who have come here since military law was declared in Poland. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that, having looked carefully at the conditions of the case, he decided that it was not one for refugee status. I understand, and am advised, that refugee status should be limited to cases that meet the criteria set out in the United Nations convention on refugees. This particular case was considered in that light and apparently did not meet those criteria.

Business of the House

Mr. Michael Foot: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 28 MARcH—Progress on remaining stages of the Telecommunications Bill.
Motion on the London Docklands Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (Greater London Council and Southwark London Borough Council) Order.
TUESDAY 29 MARcH—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Telecommunications Bill.
Motions on the Supplementary Benefit (Housing Benefits) (Requirements and Resources) Consequential Amendment Regulations, and on the Upholstered Furniture (Safety) (Amendment) Regulations.
Consideration of any Lords amendments which may be received.
WEDNESDAY 30 MARCH—Second Reading of the Local Authorities (Expenditure Powers) Bill.
Remaining stages of the Merchant Shipping Bill [Lords] and of the International Transport Conventions Bill [Lords].
Motion relating to the recommendations of the Select Committee on Standing Orders (Revision).
THURSDAY 31 MARCH—It is proposed that the House should meet at 9.30 am, take questions until 10.30 am., and adjourn at 3.30 pm until Monday 11 April.

Mr. Foot: I understand that there have been discussions through the usual channels about the debate on defence and disarmament, a debate that we have asked for many times. I trust that that will take place soon after the recess, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can confirm this. Before we go away for the recess, may we have statements on three or four most urgent matters? We should have one on shipbuilding and the developments in that industry which are causing widespread concern. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give us that assurance today.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) raised afresh a few minutes ago the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, on which we should have a statement about what the Government intend to do before we go away for the Easter recess. Also, we are still waiting for a statement on Ravenscraig from the Minister. Finally, most hon. Members heard the exchanges a few minutes ago about the Argentine sale and the loan to Argentina. The statements that the loans are not yet concluded mean that we should have a statement on that subject next week, whether from the Foreign Secretary, the Secretary of State for Defence or the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is probably the right person to do it, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give us an assurance about that.

Mr. Biffen: As the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has said, there have been discussions about the debate on defence and disarmament, and I am happy to confirm that we hope that the debate shall be arranged as soon as possible after we resume business after the Easter recess.
I have noted the right hon. Gentleman's point about the shipbuilding industry and I shall certainly refer his remarks

to the Secretary of State for Industry. The Government's policy on the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill is elaborated upon in session after session in Committee, and as the Bill will shortly come to the Floor of the House for consideration I am certain that we shall have our fill of that topic.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me about Ravenscraig last week and I can go no further today than I did then. A statement will be made on the corporate plan by my right hon. Friend, but I think that it is unlikely that that will be before Easter.
I note what the right hon. Gentleman said about the Argentine loan. I thought that the matter was effectively dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Mr. Foot: The right hon. Gentleman cannot expect concurrence with his view about the reception of the Prime Minister's statement on the Argentine loan, particularly as it appears that difficulties have arisen about the loan. We want to know whether the British Government are one of those raising difficulties, particularly as questions have been raised on the matter from both sides of the House. We should like a statement on the Government's action in the new circumstances.

Mr. Biffen: I did not expect concurrence, but I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman, more than most of us, realises that in this world one has to travel hopefully. I shall raise the matter of the loan with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary because I realise the importance that is attached to the topic.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: My right hon. Friend will be aware that shortly before the so-called fifth brigade was launched on its career of savage and brutal destruction in Matabeleland, one of Her Majesty's Ministers went to Harare and offered Zimbabwe both financial and military aid. He will also be aware, because it was reported this morning, that further offers of aid have been made to that country. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend is aware that that form of aid to a country practising racial oppression—

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Look who is talking.

Mr. Lloyd: —which is undoubtedly the case, is specifically contrary to the declarations of the Commonwealth. Can we have an urgent debate on the matter because many of us are most concerned about what is happening?

Mr. Biffen: I realise from the passion with which my hon. Friend addresses himself to the topic that it is one that he would be most anxious to have raised in the House as early as possible. I suggest that he tries his luck in securing a debate on Thursday 31 March.

Mr. George Cunningham: What are the Government thinking about, bringing to the House a Bill on the subject of control of expenditure by local authorities and proposing to enlarge the discretion to spend without including clauses to prohibit the use of public funds by local authorities for political purposes? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that in the form in which it is constructed the Bill to which we are to give a Second Reading on Wednesday will not permit such clauses to be added by any hon. Member while the Bill is going through the House? Will the right hon.


Gentleman take the Bill away and add clauses on that subject, which is far more important than the tiny matter covered in the Bill as it now stands?

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman is making a preliminary essay of a speech that he will no doubt be effectively making in the Second Reading debate on Wednesday.

Mr. David Crouch: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a certain decision taken by the GLC about traffic management in London is causing serious difficulty for hon. Members in gaining access to this place? I refer to Hyde Park corner. Will my right hon. Friend consider looking at this, and let us know whether something can be done to alleviate the problem?

Mr. Biffen: I shall look at the matter but I do not wish to mislead my hon. Friend into thinking that I believe that I have any competence there.

Mr. Frank Allaun: When are we to debate the suggested amendments to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975? Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the amendment on the Order Paper suggesting the disqualification of the chairman or chief executive of any television programme contractor? I ask this question because some of us think that even one day is too long for a Member of Parliament of any party—[AN HON. MEMBER: "Especially a Tory."]—to hold such a position, which is supposed to be held by someone who is impartial.

Mr. Biffen: I hope that the debate that is requested will take place reasonably soon after the recess.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Can my right hon. Friend say whether there is to be a statement on possible changes to the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill? If so, will he bear in mind the fact that there is considerable support among Conservative Members for the Bill as drafted, and that, in particular, the Government should not give way to special pleading on behalf of clergymen, doctors or journalists?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend does the House a service by reminding us that there are two clear sides to this argument. I shall certainly draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to what he said.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his Government have presided over the most catastrophic decline in British merchant shipping, and that because the Bill is very limited the provision for debate next week will not give us an opportunity to discuss that decline and the steps that should be taken to arrest it? Will he therefore tell his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade, who presides over this disaster, that it is necessary for the House to debate the matter at the earliest opportunity?

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman raises a point of real substance. It would be unfair to suppose that the matter has been under-debated in the recent past, but I shall certainly draw my hon. Friend's attention to what the hon. Gentleman said.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: Reverting to the answer that my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham), will my right hon. Friend nevertheless

consider before Friday the important matter that he raised so that, at the least, my right hon. Friend will listen to any representations that the hon. Gentleman makes with added receptivity?

Mr. Biffen: Certainly. I am always cheerfully receptive where the hon. Gentleman is concerned, and I gladly give my right hon. and learned Friend that undertaking.

Mr. Harry Ewing: May I again refer the Leader of the House to Ravenscraig, and his remark to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that he could not report any movement since his answer last Thursday? Is the Leader of the House aware that in most Scottish papers today there is substantial leaking from the Scottish Office to the effect that both the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary responsible for industry have made up their minds to sell the 2,000 jobs at Ravenscraig to the American steel industry? Is that not a disgraceful way to treat the workers there? If such a decision has been made, is it not incumbent on the Leader of the House to ensure that the Secretary of State for Scotland comes before the House no later than Monday of next week to remove any uncertainty and give those of us who are opposed to such a decision the opportunity to campaign against it?

Mr. Biffen: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry has stated that he will make a statement to the House about the corporate plan. That was what I reported last week, and that remains the position. In my opinion, it would be best to proceed along those lines, and it is not necessary to be intimidated by newspaper comment.

Sir Bernard Braine: In view of the massive report that was recently presented to the United States Congress on worldwide gross violations of human rights, the increasingly disturbing reports of Amnesty International on the subject here in this country, and also the wide interest that is shown in this matter by hon. Members of all parties, will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of finding time for an early debate on this issue, so that the voice of Parliament can be heard?

Mr. Biffen: Of course I shall consider the matter. I shall draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. However, as he is a doughty parliamentarian, he will have noted that later today there is a debate on international action against summary and arbitrary executions, and no doubt the speech that he would like to make at some time could very well be made later today.

Mr. David Ennals: Is the Leader of the House aware of the deep feeling that exists on both sides of the House not only about the deportation of the young Romanian but about the answer that was given by the Home Secretary on Tuesday? Is it not the Home Secretary's responsibility, if there is not time for a debate, to make a statement on his reasons, so that this House may question him more adequately than was possible in the short time on Tuesday?

Mr. Biffen: I note the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes, and I shall of course convey it to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. John Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a decision was taken in the


House of Lords this morning that a private school in England is to be forced to accept a boy who insists on wearing a turban? May we please have a debate on race relations legislation to stop such nonsense? Or does he expect all of us in this House to wear tarbooshes so as to escape prosecution?

Mr. Biffen: As an initial reaction, my hon. Friend might consider applying for an Adjournment debate on Thursday, when I am sure he would be able to use his powerful advocacy to that end.

Mr. Stanley Newens: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, although Prime Minister's Question Time offers an opportunity to raise the important question of the provision of loans by British banks to Argentina, which are being used to finance the rearmament of that country, it is by no means adequate? Will he therefore accept that many hon. Members on both sides and many people in the country who find the Government's attitude quite incomprehensible believe that it is important that we should have a better opportunity to discuss the matter? As he said in answer to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, will he take this matter back and see whether he can arrange for a statement to be made and provide a better opportunity for the matter to be dealt with?

Mr. Biffen: Of course I acknowledge at once the hon. Gentleman's interest in this matter, but at this moment I cannot add to the second reply that I gave his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Anthony Nelson: May I urge my right hon. Friend to have a debate in the reasonably near future on overseas aid? It is, I think, over a year since a full day was devoted to the subject, and in my opinion it is desirable to have at least one day a year set aside for a wide debate on overseas aid.

Mr. Biffen: A little later today the House will be indebted to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) for the opportunity to discuss the Brandt report. I should have thought that that was exactly the occasion that my hon. Friend seeks, if he has his Horlicks to keep him awake until the time of that debate.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: If the Leader of the House really thinks that the Prime Minister dealt effectively with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, his sense of the House must have temporarily deserted him. Could he arrange on the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill—the opportunity presents itself tonight—to enlarge on the Prime Minister's phrase that "stringent conditions" are being met? Are they so stringent that 70 Mirage and Israeli Dagger aircraft, 10 extra Super Entendards, heaven knows what in the way of Gabriel airto-surface missiles, 30 ex-Israeli A4 fighters, Blohm and Voss frigates, and heaven knows what else, will have been exported from Europe since the end of hostilities? Could we have a definition tonight, on the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill, of what is meant by "stringent"?

Mr. Biffen: I think that the best I can do in these circumstances is to say that I shall draw the matter to the attention of the Under-Secretary who will answer that debate.

Mr. Alan Clark: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that, whereas some of us may feel a certain distaste for the concept of a register of Members' interests, it is an established convention of the House, which imposes obligations on Members now to conform with it? What about these cheques of upwards of £2,000 that are winging their way towards members of the so-called SDP, apparently out of the blue? Would not my right hon. Friend think it appropriate to draw this to the attention of the Select Committee on Members' interests which quite clearly stated in its first report, document HC 337, that such payments should be registered?

Mr. Biffen: The House should always keep a reasonable sense of proportion in these matters. I shall, of course, reflect deeply and, I hope, constructively on the point that my hon. Friend has made.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I will call those hon. Members who have been standing in their places.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the Leader of the House ask the Prime Minister to make a statement about her response to the statement by the President of the United States of America last night, calling for research into an anti-ballistic missile defence system to be funded by the USA? Will the Leader of the House accept that scientists in the Soviet Union and in Europe should be involved in such a programme, to ensure that no one would have an advantage if the system were to work, thereby ensuring that no one can precipitate a nuclear war?

Mr. Biffen: I am not sure that it would be helpful if I tried to comment on the merits of the proposition. I shall most certainly make the request that the hon. Gentleman seeks of me.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Are we likely to receive a statement before the recess on that long-running Whitehall farce of "will he, won't he" as to whether Mr. MacGregor is to be appointed chairman of the British Steel Corporation—

Mr. Dennis Skinner: No—he is that now.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: —or, rather, whether he is to be removed from the BSC to the National Coal Board? Is it not about time the coal industry heard this so that we may debate the matter before we rise for the recess?

Mr. Biffen: I expect a statement will be made.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does the right hon. Gentleman, in his capacity as Leader of the House, not think it undesirable that the Prime Minister can go to a heads of Government meeting of the European Community and return to this country without making a statement to the House? Does he not agree that a written answer to a written question is not a proper substitute? Will he pass these remarks on to his right hon. Friend, say that we think that she should have made a statement, and ask her to make one next time without fail?

Mr. Biffen: I thought my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister scored a remarkable success in the Community. It showed a great sense of modesty that she did not wish to take advantage of an oral statement. However, I shall certainly point out to her the anxiety of the hon. Gentleman that she should have the opportunity to make more statements.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Leader of the House invite the Secretary of State for Trade to make a statement to the House on the former Tory folk hero, Sir Freddie Laker, who, according to a report in The Daily Telegraph today, has sold his stud farm for £500,000 which he proposes to pocket, even though he has cheated hundreds of thousands of people who had paid money to his company, and has denied hundreds or probably thousands of creditors well over £200 million? Surely, when he is disposing of considerable private assets, which will probably make him a millionaire, the Department of Trade should institute an inquiry into the whole business of the Laker collapse and the Secretary of State should make a statement to the House.

Mr. Biffen: The immediate test that I apply to the hon. Gentleman's comments is whether he would be prepared to go down the road and make them again and leave himself open to the normal processes of the law that would apply.

Mr. Cryer: What has that to do with it?

Mr. Biffen: Everybody who sits in this place and uses the privileges of this place must expect to be judged in that context.
Having said that, I shall, of course, draw the attention of my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Trade to what has been said. Of course, it is open to the hon. Gentleman to put down questions which will seek to establish what he here asserts.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: May I add my voice to those that have called for a debate on the scandalous business of the Government supporting and defending the idea of British banks lending money to Argentina so that it can buy Exocets, German frigates and God knows what else? Is the Leader of the House aware that there is an urgent need for a debate, especially in view of the fact that the Prime Minister said that the reason for the loans and the defence of the loans is that Argentina might default? Is he aware that on 13 March it was reported that Argentina had threatened to suspend payments of £1,000 million to central banks? In other words, having got the agreement of the International Monetary Fund and those engaged in the other two loans that were negotiated at the turn of the year. Argentina was putting up the Harvey Smith sign. Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that the air force member of the three-man junta suggested that, in order to reopen negotiations with the IMF, Argentina should take a stance, saying that it would suspend all repayments before the negotiations commenced? That is scandalous and it is time the Government defended its position from that Box.

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman has been identified with this campaign for a considerable time, and I respect him on that account. I must point out, however, that he will have a good opportunity to debate the subject later this afternoon when we shall have a debate on the international monetary system, which is being raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stevenage (Mr. Wells).

Adjournment Debates (Ballot)

Mr. Speaker: I remind hon. Members that on the motion for the Adjournment of the House on Thursday 31 March, up to nine hon. Members may raise with Ministers subjects of their own choice. Applications should reach my office by 10 pm on Monday next. A ballot will be held on Tuesday morning and the result made known as soon as possible thereafter.

MR. SPEAKER'S ABSENCE

Resolved,
That Mr. Speaker have leave of absence to-morrow, to attend the funeral of the Right honourable Trevor Alec Jones, formerly Member for Rhondda.—[Mr. Goodlad.]

Sittings of the House

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House do meet on Thursday 31st March at half-past Nine o'clock, that no Questions be taken after half-past Ten o'clock, and that at half-past Three o'clock Mr Speaker do adjourn the House without putting any Question.—[Mr. Biffen.]

Mr. George Cunningham: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to speak on the sittings motion?

Mr. Cunningham: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: Very well.

Mr. Cunningham: I do not wish to speak for long, but I do so particularly because of the substance of the reply by the Leader of the House to the question that I put on business questions. It is relevant to motion No. 2, which relates to the business that the House is to take next Thursday. Next Wednesday the first business will be the Local Authorities (Expenditure Powers) Bill. Thursday will therefore be the first day after that when the Government realise, as I do not think they do at the moment, that they have made an awful, silly mistake.
What will become apparent next Wednesday is that the Government have used the chance to bring forward a Bill dealing with local government expenditure controls without including in it any provision for restricting the discretion in the use either of the present powers or of the new powers that are to be conferred. I wish to suggest that a better use of our time next Thursday would be to try to persuade the Leader of the House to take that little two-page Bill, which by then will either have had or not have had a Second Reading, withdraw it and bring back the same Bill, but with other clauses added to restrict the freedom of local authorities to spend public money, their own ratepayers' money, on political purposes.
It is a standing scandal that local authorities—the Greater London Council is only the best-known example; Islington is pushing for that place at the moment—are spending money for political purposes. There is doubt whether some of those expenditures are lawful. There is no doubt that they ought not to be lawful. Everybody except a certain section of the House agrees that they ought not to be lawful, but they may at the moment actually be lawful.
One would have thought that the Government, knowing that they have a Bill on local authority expenditure controls coming to the House, would take the chance to include provisions on this matter. They have not done so, not because they have addressed their minds to the issue and rejected it—

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect to the hon. Gentleman, he should debate this matter on motion No. 3 if he thinks that we should not adjourn before he has had the measure that he would like.

Mr. Cunningham: If that were the suggestion that I was making I should have debated it under motion No. 3, but it is not. The suggestion that I am making is that instead of the business of the House next Thursday being what is in the motion that we are debating, it ought to be the subject matter to which I am drawing attention. I have no desire to take much more of the time of the House on

this issue, but I submit that it is in order for me to suggest an alternative use of the time next Thursday to that proposed in the motion. What I am now doing is giving reasons why the House would deserve better of the country if it gave its time next Thursday to debating this matter rather than what is proposed by the motion.
The Leader of the House, in reply to me on business questions, said that the point that I am now making would be suitable for me to make on Second Reading next Wednesday afternoon. Of course, it would not. Next Wednesday we are to discuss whether that Bill as presently constructed should get a Second Reading. If it does, there will be no possibility of adding to that Bill, under the rules and procedures of the House about the scope of the Bill, clauses to restrict the freedom of local authorities to spend money for political purposes. It is no secret that Ministers in the relevant Departments with whom one discusses these matters say that they really would prefer that certain of the activities to which I am drawing attention were unlawful, but they may not be unlawful—

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect to the hon. Gentleman, he is going into the details of the Bill. He cannot do that now. He can make his argument that we ought to discuss different business on that day, but he cannot make out his case against the Bill. That is what he would do if we changed the business for next Thursday.

Mr. Cunningham: I understand that. I shall not detain the House for much longer. If the House were to accept my proposition that we should change the business next Thursday, it would do so only in the light of a very strong case. That is why I am speaking in these terms, to suggest to the House that there really is a strong case for altering the business next Thursday.
Has the Leader of the House got it? If the Bill stays as it is, changes of the kind that I want, and changes of the kind that quite a number of Ministers want, cannot be added to the Bill because the scope of the Bill is too narrow to permit that. So if the Government do not take the Bill—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going too far. He is arguing his case on the change of the Bill rather than the change of the day. I am afraid that he must not continue along those lines.

Mr. Cunningham: Because I am asking for a considerable change in procedure, I have to suggest that there is a serious case for doing so. I think that two or three sentences conclude my case. If it goes ahead like this, no change along the lines that I am suggesting is possible, but it is possible for the Government to take the Bill away and then add clauses, bring it back and we can then achieve a restriction of the freedom of local authorities to spend money for political purposes, which a vast majority of the House want and which they cannot achieve by amendments to the Bill.
I seriously ask the Leader of the House to put that proposition to the Prime Minister. It is clear that she has not realised that an opportunity for avoiding an abuse has been carelessly missed here but can be recovered if the Government act quickly enough.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House do meet on Thursday 31st March at half-past Nine o'clock, that no Questions be taken after half-past Ten o'clock, and that at half-past Three o'clock Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without putting any Question.

Adjournment (Easter and May Day)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House at its rising on Thursday 31st March do adjourn till Monday 11 th April and at its rising on Friday 29th April do adjourn till Tuesday 3rd May and that this House shall not adjourn on Thursday 31st March until Mr. Speaker shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Acts which have been agreed upon by both Houses.—[Mr. Cope.]

Mr. James Molyneaux: As we debate the advisability of our adjourning for Easter, I wish to draw attention to a quotation in yesterday's Belfast News Letter, which recorded that the Prime Minister said in the aftermath of the meeting with Dr. Fitzgerald in Brussels:
There were no initiatives of any kind agreed at this meeting.
If that report is correct, and if the quotation is accurate, it is good news for Ulster, for initiatives have been the curse of our Province and the cause of so much death and injury.
Yesterday the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, in announcing his economic measures, exhorted the people of Northern Ireland to demonstrate to the industrialists of the world that Northern Ireland was worthy of their confidence. The people of Northern Ireland are eager to demonstrate their ability and capacity to project confidence. However, they have been prevented from achieving stability and peace because of endless speculation about endless initiatives and still more initiatives and speculation about the outcome of initiatives—a state of turmoil that has been perpetuated over the past four years of the present Parliament.
Therefore, we trust that the Prime Minister's statement yesterday about no initiative of any kind will be the guidelines for the remainder of the life of this Parliament. It is the intention of the motion that we are debating that Parliament should adjourn for about 10 days at Easter. Perhaps during that period parties in the House will turn their thoughts towards an election and a new Parliament. I am sure that they will reflect on the effect of their policies on Northern Ireland. I respectfully suggest that they pay particular attention to the real meaning of phrases such as, "Irish unity by consent" and "unity by non-violent means". If they look carefully, they will discover that such phrases are not alternatives to unity by murder but are concomitants of murder. Non-violent means are understood to be an alternative route to a shared objective.
While parties and individuals are entitled to voice their aspirations for a united Ireland, they become accomplices in murder once they depart from the principle of self-determination, which is synonymous with consent. Acceptance of self-determination and consent can only mean that unity of Ireland must await the day when the greater number—I use the term "greater number" as opposed to "majority", which might be misunderstood as meaning the Protestant majority—of people in Northern Ireland decide of their own free will to change their citizenship. If Parliament and the parties in Parliament accept, as I am sure they do, that democratic position, "initiatives" can only mean the application of force, political or economic, to compel the greater number of British citizens to take a course that they would not embark upon of their own free will.
That is why force, disguised as economic or political initiatives, is the tap that opens or shuts off violence. That explains why violence always accompanies initiatives. It

is a message from terrorists that the signal has been received and understood. Each such outburst of violence in turn produces a more deadly signal, which usually reads, "there must be a solution to end the violence." That is the violence that was generated by the earlier signal.
Therefore, political initiatives and political murder feed each other, and neither can survive without the other. The inventors of initiatives could never sell their preposterous products were it not for the blackmail provided by the terrorists. They exploit terror to gain acceptance and support for initiatives that would be regarded w ith derision if the shadow of the gunman were removed.
Perhaps the most blatant example of co-ordinated thrusts towards a common objective was provided last week by Senator Kennedy. He believed that he could not be seen to join the IRA's St. Patrick Day parade, presumably because he would not wish to be seen in public with those who have a habit of terminating human life prematurely. However, that same evening, by way of an apology for his absence, he compensated tabling a motion asking President Reagan to force Her Majesty's Government to concede the IRA's objectives. Not only is the Senator saying to terrorists, "We march by separate routes towards the same objectives" but he is persuading them that the use of two parallel routes will achieve the shared objective with greater certainty.
Yesterday in the House there was a certain hankering after the period of stability achieved by the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) when he was in charge of our affairs in Northern Ireland. I must say candidly that there is an even greater longing in Northern Ireland for such a period of stability. I hope that during the recess there will be no further deterioration of the situation in Northern Ireland and I trust that when we return we can all address our minds to the task of building confidence and peace that can come only when all initiatives have been disavowed.

Mr. Fergus Montgomery: I hope that before we rise for the Easter recess the Leader of the House will be able to say something about the vexed question of rates. I am particularly concerned because Trafford council, which covers my constituency, did very badly out of the rate support grant settlement. My constituents find this very difficult to understand because Trafford, as a Conservative-controlled council, has conformed to all the expenditure guidelines issued by the Secretary of State for the Environment.
In Trafford we have always prided ourselves on having the lowest rate in the whole of Greater Manchester. Because of this year's rate support settlement there are four authorities in Greater Manchester that are now levying a lower rate than Trafford. If this had been caused because of extravagance by Trafford councillors I would have said that they had no one to blame but themselves, but they have been prudent and have tried desperately hard to look after the ratepayers' money. They have resisted all demands from the Labour, Liberal and SDP opposition councillors for more and more expenditure. Now, of course, those councillors are making great play of the fact that we have done badly out of the rate support grant. I can only suggest that, had the council followed the policies put forward by the opposition parties, the rates bills going through the doors in Trafford at the moment would he horrendous.
Certain changes should, however, be made in the way that the rate support grant is calculated. I understand that there is something called low multipliers for high resource authorities. Apparently, these have been given to London boroughs and the amounts depend on whether the boroughs are in inner or outer London. Therefore, the largely Labour-controlled inner London boroughs receive a great deal of help in this way. The effect of a low multiplier is to reduce an authority's rateable value for the purposes of grant calculation, and thus increase its grant entitlement.
I do not quarrel with the idea of these low multipliers. It is understandable that some adjustment be made for authorities that have a high rateable value per head, since rateable values are an unreliable indicator of wealth. What concerns me is that the adjustment is confined to London. When we ask for Trafford to be given similar treatment, we are told that because we stand alone and are not part of a convenient group we cannot be given a low multiplier. Yet at 1 April 1981 there were 13 London boroughs with rateable values per head equal to or lower than Trafford's. We appear to be deprived of the benefits conferred on London for purely geographical reasons.
I cannot see why low multipliers cannot be used for all authorities above a prescribed rateable value per head. Under the present system high resource authorities outside London enjoy no benefit whatsoever from their rateable value and in some cases suffer the penalty of grant reduction, even at very low levels of expenditure. If something could be done along those lines it would be a great help to authorities such as Trafford.
We must also look for a long-term solution to the problem of rates. I have always felt that our present system is unfair because it takes no account at all of a person's ability to pay. We all know the argument of the two adjacent houses, one occupied by an elderly widow with a small fixed income and the other by perhaps four wage earners, where the same amount of rates is paid. There is no equity at all in that.
That is not the end of the inequality, however, because water rates are based on hypothetical rental values rather than on consumption, so again the person who lives on his own is unfairly treated. I hope that there will be some move to encourage water authorities to install water meters so that people would at least be paying for the water they consume rather than on the rateable value of their house.
I realise that there is no easy solution to this problem. Rating reform has been discussed for many years. The Conservative party, before the election of October 1974, when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was the shadow Secretary of State for the Environment, made a pledge that we would deal with this problem. We failed to win that election and in May 1979 that pledge took a lower priority because of the enormous increase in direct taxation that had taken place during the period of office of the Labour Government. The Conservative party said that the greatest priority must be given to reducing the burden of direct taxation.
I do not think that the Labour party has shown too much sympathy towards rating reform. Although in 1974 it set up the Layfield committee which reported in 1976, the then Labour Government neither gave the opportunity for a debate nor took any action on the report.
There are three alternatives to the present system: a sales tax, local income tax and poll tax. A sales tax seems to work quite well in the United States but there is a federal system of government in that country. In a small, crowded island such as ours, any substantial variation in shopping patterns could be unfair to traders. Local income tax would be fairer because it would take into account a person's ability to pay but it would incur the administrative costs of collection, which could be high.
Perhaps the poll tax would be the fairest method to adopt. It would be simple, easy and probably inexpensive to collect. In the Green Paper "Alternatives to Domestic Rates" the point is made that a £30 per head poll tax would yield £1,200 million in revenue annually. It could well be that a combination of a poll tax and a much reduced domestic rate is the solution.
To get a reduced domestic rate, there are certain areas that we should study. The first is education. If anyone examines his rate demand to find out how the money is spent, he will see that education takes far and away the greatest amount of money. If he delves even further, he will find that of that education budget much the largest percentage goes on teachers' salaries. I recognise that teachers are employed by local education authorities and that the latter must, therefore, bear some financial responsibility, but education is also a national responsibility. Perhaps we could devise some scheme whereby the basic salary of all teachers was paid by central Government and the salary above the basic scale shared between central Government and the local education authority. An enormous burden could be removed from the shoulders of the ratepayers by that one act.
More investigation could be made of privatisation of local authority services. We have not experimented nearly enough along these lines. A greater use of private enterprise could lead to substantial savings of ratepayers' money without any reduction in service.
The purpose of this speech is to discover what the Government think about reform and how far their plans have developed. I have acknowledged the enormous difficulties that exist and I realise that no solution is foolproof. Whichever is put forward, there will always be people ready to shoot it down. Rumour has it that the Prime Minister herself has taken over the committee studying this reform. If this is so, it is good news for the ratepayers of this country because I know that she is all too aware of the unfairness of the present rating system. Before we rise for the Easter recess, therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend can give some indication when we can expect a progress report from the Government on rate reform.

Mr. John Forrester: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise a problem that is causing grave concern to my constituents—the difficulties associated with illegal itinerant caravan dwellers and the lack of effective legislation to deal with them. I hope that, before May day, the Leader of the House will promise to bring forward legislation to help local authorities to deal with the problem.
It is an acute problem in north Staffordshire, and I have not the slightest doubt that it is repeated in other areas. Stoke-on-Trent provided a site for caravan dwellers in 1972, and became a designated area shortly after that. For some time there was an improvement in the problem.


Many people, even the itinerants, thought that being a designated area meant that it was a caravan-free zone. We have all learnt that that is not the position. There has been a steady increase in the number of illegal caravan dwellers. My constituents wonder why that should be, and what the Government intend to do about it.
Hon. Members are aware of the problems associated with itinerants—rubbish, insanitary habits, the nuisance to nearby residents, intimidation, fire hazards and the trouble that they create in nearby towns and villages. The itinerants are bitterly resented, if only because the residents feel that they evade rates and taxes and are often not arrested and prosecuted for misdemeanours for which the residents would be prosecuted.
We are told that the itinerants are not Romany gipsies. There is certainly nothing romantic about the scrap metal merchants and other self-employed individuals who tell us they must live in or near large towns to obtain a living. They cannot for ever be allowed to avoid their responsibility to society. They cannot live off society for nothing.
Last year I was told by the Department of the Environment that there were about 8,000 gipsy families in England. I assumed that that meant families living in caravans, rather than genuine gipsies. There are 3,100 public authorised pitches with some 3,500 caravans on them. There are 200 local authority sites. At the present rate of building new sites, it will take 12 years to solve the problem. That is an unacceptable time. We need a crash programme.
I appreciate that the Government give 100 per cent. grants for the building of caravan sites, which is highly commendable, but there is ony one way to solve the problem—to build more sites. The difficulty is that no one wants a site in his area. Those authorities with sites will not build more sites until neighbouring authorities without sites fulfil their obligations. Newcastle-under-Lyme, a neighbour of Stoke-on-Trent, has examined 60 sites during the past 10 years, but has not yet found one that was acceptable. That can be repeated nationwide. All authorities are in that position.
The Government should set a deadline for the finding of sites. If local authorities cannot agree among themselves, the Government should ask them for a list of possible sites in their areas. They should set up an independent inquiry to decide which sites should be used. Unless something drastic is done, people will never live in peace. Every caravan dweller must have a site on which to live, with no excuse for parking illegally.
A proposal put forward by Newcastle-under-Lyme, together with the build-up of illegal caravan parking in my constituency, has incensed the residents. They talk about revolution, being at boiling point, and setting up vigilante groups to take direct action. They believe that the local authority is inactive and the law stupid. It is not that local authorities are inactive; it is that the Department of the Environment is too complacent about the problem. It rests its case on the Caravan Sites Act 1968 and the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. It claims that further legislation would be premature. That shows that the Department does not fully understand the problem. I hope that the Leader of the House will agree that further legislation is long overdue.
Local authorities believe that to become a designated area is nothing but a con trick. It is a meaningless acknowledgement that a local authority has a site. When

neighbouring local authorities see that a designated area still has problems and is almost powerless to act, there is no incentive for them to provide sites and spend money—albeit Government money. There is a need for urgent legislation.
Authorities which are designated areas should be able to move illegal caravan parkers from local authority or private land within 24 or 48 hours of occupation, and without having to apply to the courts. Currently, an authority must apply to the magistrates courts, and it can take up to a month to obtain an order.
The modern itinerant—like so many of our population—knows the law and is prepared to stretch it to its limits. Stoke-on-Trent is now applying to the county court, which allows it to employ the services of a bailiff. That makes the process a little quicker, but not as quick as we would like. When a court order is obtained, the authority can move the itinerants only on to the highways. They then move to another site within that authority, and sometimes simply move across the road. The whole cumbersome legal process must then begin again.
The fines are wholly inadequate to discourage repeated illegal parking. Stoke-on-Trent has tried persuasion, which has been effective in the past, but is becoming less so as time goes on. The itinerants cost local authorities money that they do not wish to spend in these difficult economic times. Stoke-on-Trent employs a full-time caravan officer. It must spend money on erecting fences and bollards and making unsightly mounds of earth to prevent illegal parking. There is also the problem of clearing the rubbish. Officers have to spend time on the problems created, as do the magistrates courts. All that adds up to a burden that the community could live without.
If an authority is a designated area, it should have the power to ban illegal itinerants, perhaps with the permission of the courts, from the whole of its area for 12 months. That is the only way to solve the problem for authorities that have already provided sites. I appreciate that that may put pressure on surrounding local authorities to provide sites, but that would be all to the good, because it might solve the whole national problem more quickly.
Current legislation is wholly inadequate to deal with the problem. Its ineffectiveness encourages evasion of the law. It is expensive for local authorities. It is an unnecessary burden on those who live in the areas that attract illegal itinerants. I hope that the Government will consider urgent additional legislation—at least before May day, if it cannot be done before the House rises next week.
Finally, I refer to unfair trading practices by some countries. This matter has been brought up many times. We appear to be applying the rules in trading while others change the rules in the middle of the game, not once but many times. We all know about the intolerable tariff being put on our cars exported to Spain and the over-generous reception that Spanish goods get in this country. This is totally indefensible. There is more than a suspicion that some of our Common Market partners are dumping things in this country—for instance, ceramic tiles from Italy and Spain for the DIY market and the building trade. That cannot be defended by anyone. I hope that the rumour is not true that we may have some imported foreign tiles from either Italy or Spain in this building. Perhaps we shall get an assurance that that is not the case.
I am now told that Portugal has increased a 10 per cent. import surcharge to 30 per cent. on transfers used in the ceramic, enamel, steel and glass industries.
I suggest to the Leader of the House that, before the Easter recess, we make urgent representations to Spain and Portugal, pointing out that if they are keen to join the European Community they should be aware that such practices and discrimination against fellow Community members are unacceptable, and that we may not be enthusiastic about accepting them into the Community if they do not mend their ways.

Sir Peter Mills: I do not intend to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mr. Forrester) but I think that he made an excellent speech, particularly on the difficult subject of gipsies. I hope that the Government will take careful notice of what he said. Certainly we in the south-west of England experience problems very similar to the ones that he has put so eloquently to the House this afternoon. It is a growing problem and something has to be done. Boiling point has been reached many times. At a meeting recently I heard that although gipsies had only been in the area a week local residents were saying that the rats were as big as cats. It is extraordinary how emotional people get over these things. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter and I support him fully.
I am not really very happy at the House going into recess until I can obtain one or two things from the Government. There are one or two subjects that are of particular importance to us in the south-west and in my own constituency and I hope that before the recess begins we can at least have some answers from the Government on the three points which I shall make.
There is a fourth point that I should have liked to make, on the very thorny and difficult problem of pigs. I hope, however, that my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks), who is an expert on pigs, will be able to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to reiterate my views as well as his own on this important subject.
The first reason for delay is the need for a statement from the Government on the whole problem of water supplies in the south-west of England and the Roadford reservoir. I ask the Government, and specifically the Minister, how much longer we must wait before we get a decision. Democracy is important in this country, but it is slow, frustrating and terribly expensive. We in my constituency have been extremely patient for a very long time. The patience of Job is just not in it. We need and answer on this difficult problem. We need more water.
We think that the Minister has come to the wrong decision about where the reservoir should go—that is, at Roadford. We believe that it should be on the moor. At least we should be told pretty quickly the size and whether the South-West water authority can go ahead with the building of the new dam and reservoir at Roadford. Surely, before we rise, we can have an answer from the Secretary of State for the Environment. I have a feeling that a decision is very near. I hope that, because of what I say this afternoon, he may be persuaded to make it before Easter.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I am not clear what my hon. Friend was referring to. Was it a reservoir or some extension of water supplies?

Sir Peter Mills: I am very sorry. I thought everybody would know about Roadford. Roadford is the proposed site of a new reservoir in my constituency. It was originally intended that this reservoir should be built on Dartmoor, where it ought to be, so that the water could flow down cheaply and would not involve the use of good agricultural land. The Secretary of State for the Environment, in his wisdom—I disagree with him—has said it must go on agricultural land. It is grade 3 and some grade 4 land, but it is agricultural land. That is to be flooded for a new reservoir at Roadford, and I disapprove of that very much. In principle, the Secretary of State has said it is to go there but he has not given the decision to go ahead because of its size, and other matters.
The second reason why I think we should delay the Easter recess is that we need a statement on the future of Dartmoor. I believe that I would carry many hon. Members on both sides of the House with me on this. The problem of Dartmoor is particularly one of stock management and we need legislation quickly to deal with this problem. I have tried, and failed, through the ballot to introduce a private Member's Bill. Devon county council has tried to introduce a private Member's Bill and has failed.
This matter is urgent. We feel that assistance should be given to meet the desires of the farmers—and not only the farmers but many other people interested in animal welfare on Dartmoor. We need clear-cut legislation on management rules because at the present moment some farmers are spoiling things for the others through bad management. We need to be more concerned about the welfare of livestock on Dartmoor, the numbers there and the type of livestock. We need a commoners' council. It is, after all, only the commoners who can administer and carry out the management rules. It is very important that these get under way quickly. We need to control the improvement of land, because none of us wants to spoil the beauty of Dartmoor. We need regulations about the removal of stock at certain times for dipping, and so on. There is need also, of course, for proper consultation with the people in the area and understanding of the problems of Dartmoor.
I shall continue to press these matters. I believe that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has a very real role to play in these matters. I have been hoping for some time that we might have some clear-cut statement on these matters.
Lastly, I turn to a subject which I have raised many times in the House and on which I have never got very far. It is a very wearying situation to have spent 19 years struggling to obtain a by-pass at Okehampton. Whether under the previous Administration or this Administration, as we say in Devon, I have not got "very furr". It is about time we had a decision from the Department of Transport on the Okehampton by-pass and, of course, the dual carriageway between Tongue End and Whiddon Down. It is one of the most dreadful bottlenecks in the country. Lives have been lost and accidents occur frequently. Now that the inspector has given his report to the Department, we need that evaluation quickly so that the contracts can go out and a start can be made on building the by-pass and the continuation of the dual carriageway.
We have waited nearly three years for the inspector to make his report. That it should take so long to make a decision does not say much for the speed at which the Department works. The matter is urgent and there are


many anxious people in the village of Sticklepate and the town of Okehampton. I ask only that we should proceed quickly. If, after 19 years, the House could go into the Easter recess with some decision on this, I should celebrate Easter much more happily.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: In the few minutes at my disposal I want to refer to a long-standing issue that is well known to certain Members of the House who have been involved in the affair. I refer to what some would say is the celebrated case of Alan Grimshaw. For many years, until his death a few days ago, Alan Grimshaw tried to obtain justice in respect of his employment with the National Coal Board and his investigation into the NCB's acquisition of roof supports in the 1960s and 1970s, which culminated in his appearance before the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries in 1973 and 1974.
Alan Grimshaw was an NCB executive who decided that there was something wrong with the way in which the NCB's accounting system was being carried out, especially in respect of the purchase of spares and roof supports. During his investigations he, along with another employee of the NCB who was making independent inquiries, discovered that money was being spent that should not have been spent. Not long after that he was sacked from the NCB. Such was the nature of the evidence that Alan Grimshaw supplied that the Dowty Group paid back £1.3 million, so he saved the taxpayer that amount. Some would argue that a lot more money should have been paid back, but Alan Grimshaw was given the sack for his pains.
Around the time that Alan Grimshaw was trying to make representations to all and sundry he tried to get the NCB and the British Association of Colliery Management, his trade union, to take up the investigation into the scandalous use of money for the purchase of supports, but he did not get far. All that emerged was that Dr. David Leigh, a member of the Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs, said that between 1969 and 1972 as much as £74 million was spent by the NCB that could not be accounted for by inflation.
Finally, a Select Committee was set up in 1973 by the Tory Government, who were then in power. It had almost concluded its findings just before the general election of February 1974. As a result of a split vote, the Committee decided to investigate the NCB's purchase of roof supports and spares and the excess money that had been paid for them. In its investigations it heard evidence from Alan Grimshaw, Dr. David Leigh and, I believe, Fred Evett. In the report the most important references to the financial losses were replaced by asterisks because it was said that they were state secrets.
I should explain my position in this matter. After the general election in February 1974 I was asked whether I wanted to sit on the Committee that was investigating the NCB's supplies. I joined the Committee merely to take part in that investigation. When I went into the Committee on the Wednesday afternoon I found that the loose-leafed reports were all ready for reading and for subsequent publication. We were asked to take them away with us to read during the following fortnight and then to return to go through them. Having read the report, I returned to continue the investigation. It should be borne in mind that at that time there had been substantial changes in the composition of the Committee because of the general

election that had just taken place. Some hon. Members had been made Ministers, others had left, and so on. There is no doubt that that was the only reason why I managed to get on to the Committee.
Because the investigation had not been thorough enough, because the evidence of Alan Grimshaw and Dr. David Leigh had not been properly recorded in the minutes, and because the findings were not sufficient in view of the serious allegations that had been made, I suggested that Lord Robens, who was the chainnan of the NCB when the allegations were made between 1961 and 1971, should be brought before the Committee and interviewed. What in fact happened was that Sir Derek Ezra—now Lord Ezra, a Liberal peer—was asked to appear before the Committee to give evidence. At the time that these allegations were made in the middle and late 1960s Derek Ezra was at the other end of the NCB. He was at the sales end, selling coal; he had never been involved in mining and the purchasing of equipment in the NCB. So the Committee had the wrong man before it.
I suspect that it did not call Lord Robens because one of the firms involved in what could be described as a squalid deal was Bonsor Engineering Ltd., in which Lord Robens' son was involved. Bonsor Engineering Ltd., a relatively small Nottinghamshire engineering firm that was supplying roof supports to the NCB, was taken over by Dowty in 1969. Dowty had also supplied roof supports to the NCB. It was suggested that, with its goodwill, the company was worth about £1.4 million, which Dowry paid over. Some people raised eyebrows at that and said that it was a lot of money for Dowty to spend on Bonsor Engineering Ltd.
A fellow called William Sheppard was brought in as an independent arbitrator to look into the matter. He just happened to be an NCB executive who later moved up the ladder at the NCB and became number two. There were additional goodwill payments every year between 1971 and 1975, totalling £1,261,339. More than £2 million was paid for the engineering firm, yet almost 50 per cent. of the supports that it supplied could not carry the yield load, according to an NCB man in 1967, and in 1968 the NCB withdrew its approval of Bonsor supports.
Dowty had taken over Bonsor Engineering Ltd. in 1969, when it was almost a worthless organisation. It did not have even one order with the National Coal Board at the time of the takeover, but these payments and further goodwill payments were made until 1975.
When, some time after the 1974 general election I requested that Lord Robens be brought before the Committee, as hon. Members will probably guess, I did not get a seconder. That is a problem that sometimes occurs at the national executive committee. I understand the difficulties, but that was the end of it for me on that committee. I had managed to be on the Committee for one hour and 10 minutes altogether, and I do not wish to be on any more after that experience. My problem does not worry me, because it is long gone. It was easy for the Labour Government to find somebody to take my place on the Committee, and they did so two or three days later.
Alan Grimshaw, having given evidence, was sacked towards the end of 1974. The report was issued in the spring of 1974, and in December he was moved. In June 1974, so that the National Coal Board could let Mr. Grimshaw know that it had got it in for him, he was moved, despite the fact that he was earning about £5,000 a year. That was not small fry. That was what his


important job yielded him then, but he was moved to counting mops and buckets, and he was given the push at the end of the year.
The House had a chance to restore Alan Grimshaw to his position. He had appeared before a Select Committee, had given evidence and had got the sack as a result. That is the opinion of most people who have read the case over and over again throughout the years. The issue went to the Committee of Privileges in 1976. This wonderful Mother of Parliaments, with all its talk about freedom for individuals, examined the Grimshaw case and decided that, despite the fact that he had given evidence as a free man, it could not assist him in ensuring that he received some reparation or compensation for his dismissal. As a bitter man he left Doncaster and went to Morpeth.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Mr. Grant), who is very ill, and has been for some considerable time, tried to help him as best he could. In July last year, I brought a petition before the House so that Parliament could, in what turned out to be the last few months of Alan Grimshaw's life, straighten the matter out, but it has not done so. The petition went to the Leader of the House and finished up in the same place as many other petitions.
I am talking about somebody who came to the House and gave evidence in good faith. It is a great recommendation, is it not, when somebody gives evidence before a Select Committee and then finds that he is on the rack, counting mops and buckets for six months, and is finally sacked? Now he is dead. A few months ago he passed away after a heart attack. His wife, Isabelle, intends to carry on the fight, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth is very ill, I said that I would continue to raise this matter.
I appeal to the Leader of the House. We have corresponded on this issue, and it has been raised during business questions and in various other ways. The Leader of the House will recall that he was on the ground floor when this matter began way back in 1973. Even though Alan Grimshaw has passed away, surely Parliament can provide some recompense for events and for his testimony before that Select Committee. That is why I thought it necessary that the matter should be dealt with before hon. Members rise for the Easter recess. I call upon the Leader of the House to try, even at this late stage, to find some way of ensuring that Alan Grimshaw's memory is not tarnished in the way that his life was after he appeared before the Select Committee. For all his efforts, he finished up on the dole.

Sir Paul Hawkins: The Leader of the House will be pleased to know that I do not intend to move or speak on the same matter as I did on two previous occasions, about which he reminded me, because the Budget has helped my case for taxation relief on tenanted land. I am very grateful for that.
The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) made a moving speech and I trust that the Leader of the House will give close attention to it. One does not like to hear that type of story if the facts are as stated.
The same problems with gipsies and caravans are current in the east of England. That is one of the most frequent subjects of letters in my postbag. The problem is

difficult to solve because no village wishes to have a caravan site in its boundaries. That is one of the major difficulties to be overcome.
Before the House goes into recess, I wish to have a proper explanation about the young Romanian who was not treated as a genuine refugee and not allowed to remain in this country. I trust the House will be given an explanation or the promise of a full inquiry. When I was coming to London on the train on Monday, in my local daily paper, the Eastern Daily Press, I read, under the heading "Lost Refuge", a story which made me more and more hot under the collar, even taking into account the fact that not every story in the press is the gospel truth. When I got to London, I went to the Home Affairs Committee, where I raised the matter. Since then, I have had correspondence and telephone calls from several of my constituents about this matter.
The Minister of State, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Waddington), as a result of my raising this matter, courteously sent me a note about the case. He was put in at the deep end because he has been the Minister of State with that responsibility for only a short time. I have read and re-read the note that he sent to me and remain totally unconvinced that it was right to return this man to the harsh and repressive regime in Romania. I am even more convinced that the House should not go into recess without a full explanation.
We allow "overstayers", as they are called—I call them illegal immigrants—to stay in this country unmolested for many years, yet when a man, after spending ten years in prison for trying to leave a police state, succeeds in getting here we play with him as a cat will play with a mouse for about nine months and then suddenly pounce on him and send him away. The Minister wrote to me that the British Romanian Society was
invited to take an interest
but he did not say whether it did take an interest. Nothing in the statement says whether it did take an interest or whether the society asked for him to be allowed to stay. That question ought to be answered.
It is said that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees was told of the case, but the statement that I was sent does not say whether he made any remarks. I do not feel like going away for the Easter recess until I know the answer to that. It seems quite wrong that the man was kept at a remand centre from—if I have the story right—April to November before being released on bail. Either the matter should have been settled, or he should have been released on bail long beforehand. How long was it before a Minister knew that he was being detained at Ashford remand centre?
I should also like to be given the answers to the following questions before I go home to Norfolk.
Is it true that one reason for not allowing the young man to stay—as the leading article in my newspaper says—is that he failed to prove that Romania was "turbulent" rather than "stable"? The regime is, of course, stable because of massive repression. The article that I have says that he spent a decade in gaol trying to leave the country. In his note, the Minister cast doubt on that, saying that that was not mentioned when he was first interviewed. I spent about five years in a foreign country against my will. I had my first interview soon after having the horse clippers run over my head of hair—which was probably good for me—and that first interview did not encourage me in trying to make my case.
Surely this man's case could have been checked. We must have some representatives in Romania who could have checked whether the man's story was right. It is strange that he was here for nine months, yet doubt is still cast on his story.
Is it true, as my newspaper suggests, that the reason given for refusing the man asylum was that he wanted to better himself? Surely that is not a crime. Surely more weight should have been given to the decade that he spent in gaol and that should have decided the point. The whole affair is extremely worrying. Many Polish citizens have been in Britain for a year or more on some form of licence—I have many Polish citizens in my constituency—and they are fearful that the same fate may overtake them. I feel sure that it will not, but those living in a country other than their own have such fears.
I am upset that this affair should land in the lap of my hon. and learned Friend the Minister, who has only been in his post for such a short time, and I am sure is doing an exceptionally good job. Yesterday, the Home Secretary said that he was fully involved, yet, through the inept questioning of the Leader of the Opposition, who went off on the wrong scent about the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, the Home Secretary did not give any detailed answers.
I am convinced that, sadly, this incident arose because of typical bureaucratic stupidity. The man was treated not as a human being, but as a piece of illegally imported furniture. I repeat that I am loth to leave for the Easter recess until a full explanation has been given and until my questions have been answered, or a promise is given that a full inquiry will be undertaken to ensure that there is no repetition of such a case.

Mr. Robert Hicks: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will give due consideration to the important and sensitive issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Sir P. Hawkins). We, and the nation as a whole, have followed the case carefully, and it is both distressing and worrying.
I wish to discuss the sorry state of affairs currently facing the United Kingdom's pig industry. Before the Easter recess a statement should be made on the current situation. I appreciate that the economic fortunes of this form of farming vary. It is a very cyclical sector of agriculture. Indeed, I see the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) on the Opposition Front Bench. When he was Minister I think that I was a member of two delegations who saw him when the pig industry was in difficulties four or five years ago.
I notice that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, is smiling, but I remind him of his original west country connections. I hope, therefore, that he will make a sympathetic response at the end of the debate.

Sir Paul Hawkins: May I remind my hon. Friend that there are many pigs in East Anglia as well as in the west country?

Mr. Hicks: Of course, and no doubt throughout the country.

Mr.Ivan Lawrence: In Staffordshire.

Mr. Hicks: I did not know that a Cornish Member of Parliament could get so much support. It is a good job that we are not talking about predominantly economic issues.
Nevertheless, there can be no doubt that the existing position is most disturbing. Hon. Members will know from their constituency postbags the many pig farmers who have no doubt quoted each and every one of us financial figures on their own positions. Last week the House was lobbied by about 500 pig producers. There is now factual evidence to support the proposition that their fears are justified. The statistics contained in the report from the department of agricultural economics at Cambridge university show that pig producers are losing money irrespective of the sector of pig production involved.
In essence the report shows that the loss on each pig that goes for pork is in excess of £5. The individual loss on a pig going for bacon is about £3.50 and the loss on those used as cutter pigs is in excess of £8 per animal. I emphasise that those calculations take no account of the interest on borrowed capital. Nor is any allowance made for the cost of herd management. Indeed, pig producers in my area have shown me their accounts, and sometimes the loss per pig is as much as £10.
Several factors have contributed to the crisis, the most basic being that there are just too many pigs. At the beginning of last year, pig production was quite profitable after three years of mediocre returns. In consequence, there was a response from producers. The number of breeding sows increased by about 4 per cent., and the number of gilts by 6 per cent. It should be borne in mind that each of those additional pigs produces, on average, 16 to 18 pigs per year and that demonstrates the extent of the problem.
The profits derived from the industry during the spring of 1982 did not last. Since May 1982, profitability has declined, culminating in the present crisis.
The lack of promotion by those involved in selling the pig industry and its products causes anxiety. A more fundamental problem is the high price of cereals upon which pig feeds are based, which, in practice, account for 85 per cent. of pig production costs. At present, barley costs the producer £125 per tonne. When it is put into compound, the compound costs about £170 per tonne. The immediate outlook is even more depressing. The cereal year finishes at the end of July. Between now and then, it is estimated that the cost of barley will rise by £2 per tonne per month, so that by July the barley input cost will be about £133 per tonne. In addition, because of the downward fluctuation in sterling, the price of soya, which is an important ingredient in the compound price, is increasing.
Our producers face increasing costs over which they have no control. They are particularly aggravated by the fact that at present some barley, which costs them about £125 per tonne, is sold to third countries with an export refund of £55 per tonne. Spain, for example, at present purchases some barley at £70 per tonne. If that is not enough, to add to the problem, it is estimated that there are 1 million tonnes of barley currently in intervention.
I appreciate that pig producers have some assistance available already. There are incentives for marketing. "Food from Britain" is being established. We have the "Charter Bacon" drive at present. There is private storage to take surplus pig products off the market.
I should like to make two proposals that I hope my right hon. Friends the Leader of the House and the Minister can


make a statement about before the House rises. I believe that consideration should be given to increasing the rate of export refunds paid in the United Kingdom to encourage further the export of pigmeat from the Community to third countries.
My second proposal concerns the cost of feed, which constitutes 85 per cent. of pig producers' costs. It has been suggested in some quarters, that there should be some form of support system right across the board. I do not subscribe to that view. I do not believe either that the cost of feed should be subsidised by intervention because there would be no control over its ultimate use. It would be logical to assist with the pig product. I suggest that the producer should receive a rebate when the pig goes for slaughter, whether for bacon or pork.
Such action, which might cost about £2 per pig, would show pig producers that the Government understand the problems, which we hope are temporary, that the pig producers are currently facing.
Underlying everything I have said, is the fact that the Community, through its current price negotiations, must make positive headway in restoring the balance between the livestock sector and the cereal producer. That difference is inherent in the problems facing the pig producer. It is why I believe that the House should support my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in his efforts to see that there is no increase in the price paid to the cereal producer this year.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I want to raise one major matter and one minor matter arising from the remarks by the Leader of the House earlier when I mentioned an item from The Daily Telegraph about the Laker affair. The Leader of the House suggested that the only way that I could pursue the subject was to repeat the remarks outside the House.
Members of Parliament have privilege to enable us to raise matters in the House without threat of legal action, and to give us the right to raise matters freely in an elected Parliament so that they can be investigated properly and fully. It is wrong for the Leader of the House to suggest that if hon. Members make critical remarks here they should, in some way, invite legal action outside to justify their remarks.
The issue I raise is contentious, but it has been the subject of a great many critical comments from many reputable as well as disreputable newspapers, by many commentators and many people, especially those who were booking holidays and anticipated being provided with travel. Those people feel cheated. There is no other word for it, particularly when they see that the much publicised and heralded managing director of the company can obtain lavish sums from the sale of his property which are not affected by the company's collapse. Many of the creditors who were seriously affected by the way the airline collapsed feel the same.
I resent the suggestion that this subject is not a matter of public interest and should not be subject to critical comment in the House and outside in the public press. My right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench have pressed repeatedly for a Department of Trade inquiry into the affair. If everything should be so free of criticism, a Department of Trade inquiry would clear up the matter.

The report would be published and we could then debate it in the House. I see nothing wrong with that procedure and I believe that the Secretary of State for Trade should follow it. It is a procedure that has been followed with many other companies, some of which have been subject to much less criticism that the Laker Airways Ltd fiasco.
The main point that I want to raise, which has not been discussed by the House, and which I think should be discussed, is the Press Council report into the conduct of the press in the Sutcliffe case. People in west Yorkshire, of course, were relieved when the police made the announcement of an arrest in what became known as the Yorkshire Ripper case. It was an oppressive period and women felt vulnerable. In some cases they were open to tragic, physical attacks. Nonetheless, the Press Council has made a report that is severely condemnatory of the conduct of the press once an arrest had been made.
I wish to confine my remarks to the Press Council report. It has to be acknowledged that the press were given a new lease to engage in their disreputable activities by an injudicious police press conference called on Sunday, 4 January 1981 when the police announced, in everything but the actual words, that they had obtained the arrest of the Yorkshire Ripper and that he was behind bars.
No matter how jubilant the police are over an arrest, they have to control carefully the announcement that they make. We have the precious tradition that a person is innocent until proved guilty in a court of law. Because the police arrest someone, it does not automatically follow that the person is guilty. If the sort of press bonanza that followed this incautious and badly handled press conference happens in other cases, it will become virtually impossible for a person to have a fair trial. That is why we have a sub judice rule which hon. Members follow carefully in the House although we are not legally bound by it. We follow it in order not to prejudice a fair trail.
Following the police press conference, there appeared a series of massive press headlines in the daily newspapers and local evening newspapers. For example, the Telegraph and Argus had the headline, "Joy of the Ripper hunters." It was not surprising, therefore, that, outside the magistrates' court, there gathered a large and menacing crowd chanting at the onset of the prisoner who, it has to be remembered, is innocent until proven guilty. One person carried a noose, showing the attitude that had been whipped up by the massive headlines and comments initiated by the police press conference.
Because the press felt that the rules had now been bent by the police and that they could leap in and bend them even further, there followed a nauseating procession of journalists to visit the relatives of the arrested person, Sutcliffe, and the relatives of the victims with large cheques inducing those people to give their exclusive stories to whatever paper they represented. At the back of the Press Council report are some examples of those offers. One newspaper said:
Whatever another newspaper offers, we will top that offer.
Sums of £50,000, £60,000, £70,000 and £80,000 were being bandied about. Those offers were deeply offensive to the relatives of the victims of the so-called Yorkshire Ripper. It is offensive that people should profit from the actions of a person who has brought such grief and tragedy to so many homes. The exploitation of a macabre story still continues to this day. The car that Sutcliffe used is now apparently up for sale to the highest bidder. The fact that it was used in this context is being promoted in order to


increase the profit. In their evidence, the Daily Star and the Daily Mail were less than open with the Press Council. One of those papers admitted that it was conducting negotiations with the relatives of Sutcliffe. It did not reveal that the negotiations were conducted at two luxury hotels at a cost amounting to several thousand pounds and that the person who was being lured, and his friends, spent a very nice five or six days at the expense of the newspaper.
Bearing in mind that the Daily Mail and Daily Mirror have been very critical of the Press Council report, the House must consider seriously legislation making cheque book journalism illegal. It does not widen the freedom of the press, as David English, recently knighted, claims. It actually narrows the freedom of public comment. As soon as a newspaper, seeking only to increase its circulation and not acting in the public interest, pays for the services of an individual, that individual is not available to give comments to the other newspapers and other parts of the media. Those comments are bought by the newspaper for its exclusive use. Freedom is narrowed, not enlarged.
There is another consequence. If a trial is to take place and witnesses know that there are cheques floating around for stories about the background and about their relations with the accused person—friends of Sutcliffe, his relatives and those who had known him in his younger days, were all approached with the lure of lucrative offers—it becomes an attraction for a witness to ginger up his evidence, to make it more dramatic, and to prolong the trial. All of these become possible alternatives because the witness knows that, at the end of the day, they mean the possibility of more, not less, money. The actual conduct of the trial can be affected by the inducement of sums of money.
In view of the conduct of the press, the House must examine cheque book journalism. The issue has been raised time after time in the House over a number of years when some dramatic set of circumstances has arisen, such as the Sutcliffe case, only to die down again until the next time money is offered. One sees on television people who have been mercenaries, who have been arrested in some far-flung part of the world and who, when brought home, are ushered by representatives of a daily newspaper into a waiting car before the television and radio commentators can get near.
We know that it happens. We have seen it. It is cheque book journalism at work. We should be prepared to consider legislation to ensure that it is curbed and ended. This would be a recognition of the real grief that relatives of the victims have suffered and the deep and burning resentment that they feel when people profit out of the death of their relatives. The report stated:
The Press Council has concluded that in this case the relatives of those at the centre of the story—victim and accused—were subjected to wholly unacceptable and unjustifiable pressures by journalists and other media representatives anxious either to interview or photograph them or to bid for the right to publish their stories. The conduct of journalists who laid siege to their homes in the circumstances described above can best be characterised in the old phrase—watching and besetting. The targets of this attention were people in deep personal grief or grave anxiety and they were harassed by the media ferociously and callously.
Those words, "ferociously and callously" are not my words. They are the words of the Press Council, which is not a radical body. Its criticisms in the past have tended to be well modulated, moderate and, indeed, mild. Yet, such were the circumstances in this case, that it felt the need to use the words

harassed by the media ferociously and callously.
The abolition by law of cheque book journalism would widen the freedom of the press, not diminish it. It would ensure the greater certainty of a fair trial and give a decent quietness to the relatives of those people who have to face such awful circumstances.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. It might be for the convenience of hon Members who wish to speak if I say that the debate must end at 7.3 pm. The House will obviously wish to leave time for the winding-up speeches. Perhaps hon. Members will bear the time in mind.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I shall endeavour to be brief. I am not sure how relevant to the motion was the speech of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer), but we have heard some valuable speeches, not least from the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mr. Forrester). He is a near neighbour of mine and he raised the important subject of unfair competition. I hope that the Minister will deal with the additional import surcharge from Portugal which has been put on all manufactured goods.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned gipsies—I call them tat merchants—who blight many of our rural areas. I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman's solutions are right. The Government should try to reduce their number and the number of them who come here, as many of them come from the Republic of Ireland.
I should like to deal with a problem that relates both to the Republic of Ireland and to unfair competition. I have been approached by a company called Herbert Lomas Ltd., which is just outside my constituency and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Normanton). Many of its directors and work force live in my constituency. The company has approached me because it has encountered unfair competition at the hands of a company called N. Hanlon in the Republic of Ireland in the supply of ambulances to the United Kingdom market.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) is also involved, because another affected company, called Wadham Stringer, is in his constituency. Sadly, that company has already had to declare some redundancies as a result of the unfair competition from the ambulance manufacturer in the Republic of Ireland, who is clearly being subsidised in one form or another by the Government of the Republic. Moreover, the Irish company indulges in the most blatant form of open hospitality to ambulance officers and others from Britain who are responsible for the purchasing of ambulances. If I say that it is likely that, in 1983–84 contract year, the Irish company will have obtained between 80 and 90 per cent. of all ambulance orders that are placed by United Kingdom regional health authorities, the House will understand the seriousness of the problem that faces Herbert Lomas, Wadham Stringer and British Leyland, which is indirectly involved in the supply of the chassis.
I should like my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to examine the issue, because those companies are relatively small and find it difficult to know whether companies that operate in a country that is a member of


the EC are being subsidised by their Government in some way, thus enabling them to provide ambulances for the British ambulance service at a ridiculously low cost.
I remind the House that the National Healh Service has recently set up a department called the National Health Service council, the offices of which, I understand, are in Bristol. Its function is to look into better ways of purchasing all items that the NHS buys and to ensure that a monopoly does not arise. In this case, it appears that a monopoly is arising. A company outside the United Kingdom, which is clearly indulging in unfair competition, is creating a monopoly to the detriment not only of the manufacturing base in Britain but of our employment. I look for an assurance from my right hon. Friend that the subject will be looked into urgently.
I shall now deal with an education matter. In my constituency, quite a few changes are being considered by the Cheshire education authority, not least of which is the closure of the Ryles Park county high school. That is causing considerable aggravation, disquiet and anxiety among teachers, parents and the pupils who attend the school. The school is in the centre of the town. The county intends to close it gradually and to redirect the pupils who would normally go there to other secondary schools in the borough of Macclesfield.
My main anxiety is that my constituency is one of the fastest growing areas in Cheshire. On ground of cost, the county may be attempting to make a premature decision about the closure of that school. It may find in due course that the remaining schools are inadequate to cope with the increasing number of children in the secondary school sector.
I ask for an assurance that, if the issue is contested, the Secretary of State for Education and Science will call it in for his consideration. If the county council succeeds with the proposal that is open for consultation, it intends that the secondary school be turned into an extension of the college of further education. As I am meeting the headmaster, members of staff and the action committee this weekend, I look forward to an assurance that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will intervene if necessary.
Sadly, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has agreed to the closure of three junior schools that are also in the centre of Macclesfield, because of falling rolls. They are the St. Peter's school, the St. George's school and the Byron street county junior school. Their pupils are to be directed into what was called the Central school, which is an old Victorian building and utterly unsuitable for an infant and primary school.
I accept my right hon. Friend's decision and I understand the reasons for the county making the proposal to him, but I hope that my right hon. Friend appreciates the valuable part that is played by small infant and primary schools. It is not always the quality of the building that counts, but the quality of teaching and the atmosphere in those schools. Much better work can often be done in a smaller school. It is a sore and unpleasant experience for a young child to come straight from a rural area into a massive infant and junior school. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will bear that in mind.
I shall try to deal quickly with war widows, pensions. As I was at school with James Nicholson, I have reacted with deep anxiety to the representations that he has made

to me, the Prime Minister and many other hon. Members. He is a charming man whose father was killed in the second world war and awarded the Victoria Cross for his gallantry. If we can treat the widows of those who fall in subsequent wars, such as that in the south Atlantic only last year, so generously, it is only right that the widows of those who fell while preserving our freedom and democracy in the first and second world wars should be treated with equal generosity. The state should not simply award them what I would describe as the extremely moderate war widow's pension—I give credit to the Government for freeing it of all tax—because they deserve the old age pension as well for the service that their husbands gave to the country.
Finally, and on a controversial note, I shall ask my right hon. Friend several questions which I suspect he will find it difficult to answer. He may know that I was involved in revealing to the Government certain matters that related to the De Lorean motor company at Dunmurry in Northern Ireland, as a result of which I received a writ for £133 million. That writ has now been struck out. I now ask the Government why, when I gave them that evidence in the autumn of 1981, the police inquiries that were initiated by Downing street were prematurely terminated. They were terminated in such a way that the police officers, who were then in the United States of America, were recalled before they had the opportunity to interview a vital witness.
Even if there were no criminal implications then, why were not inquiries into the abuse of taxpayers' money instigated by the Prime Minister or by the Northern Ireland Office? What evidence came to light between the time when I provided massive evidence to the Government and December 1982 to cause the Government to institute further police inquiries on this occasion, this time through the fraud squad of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, because of financial irregularities in the affairs of the De Lorean companies in Northern Ireland and in America?
Those inquiries are continuing. When will the Government make a statement to the House about why a British Government entered into an arrangement with a man such as Mr. De Lorean, who had a history that would lead any sensible Government to believe that he should not be trusted? Even the Irish Government were not prepared to enter into a financial arrangement with him in the setting up of this company. Why did the Government compound their folly by providing him with taxpayers' money totalling between £80 million and £90 million in loans and grants? The country, the taxpayer and the House deserve answers to those questions from either the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, or the Attorney-General, who terminated police inquiries in the autumn of 1981. I shall not let this matter drop, and I hope that either before the Easter recess or shortly thereafter the Government will make a statement to the House about what happened, where the money went and what action they intend to take.

Mr. Fred Silvester: I am not so sanguine as my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) as to squeeze in so many subjects for reply between now and the Easter recess. I shall concentrate on one matter, although it concerns several relevant decisions.
I have discussed with a Minister the Government's approach to money spent in the regions. We discussed the


argument that one way to deal with a region's problems was to assess its key features and to emphasise its strength. I said that a major factor in the north-west would be to reestablish the city of Manchester as a regional centre and one which would act as a dynamo for the entire region. He agreed with that, but said, "It is too late to do anything about it now."
It is, of course, not too late to do something about it. If that were ever believed to be true, it would be a depressing prospect. Whenever one considers the region, one reaches the conclusion time and again that if the city could be re-established as the major force in commerce, industry and services that it used to be, the benefit to the surrounding areas would be manifest. Some current decisions will be of great importance in establishing the city in that role, and there is a glimmer of realisation and hope within the city. The improvement can be made not by outsiders, but by those who live in the area. They now realise that in the core of the greater Manchester area there is a vacuum that must be filled. New projects are afoot for the development of the arts, museums and hotel accommodation. Recently, the city made a successful attempt to regain the attractiveness of the shopping area in the city centre. The city council, for which I have no great love, has at last begun to understand the relevance of car parks, which for many years it had overlooked.
However, such decisions cannot always be made locally. We are in the midst of a continuing argument about the location of the European trade marks office. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who will have heard about this matter in a previous incarnation, will be surprised to hear that the argument is continuing. Although every Minister who comes to this portfolio gives us the same answer, we do not propose to let the matter go. We are not being obstinate and stupid, and we do not accept the reason for the Government's refusal to support Manchester's bid for that office. The Government say that because London has become an established centre for a special skill, it must always be so, even though the European trade marks office will be a new venture, and a new centre of activity can be established. We must challenge that reasoning because otherwise London, having been established as a trade, skill or business centre, will always be so and there will be ever more concentration in the south-east.
Although the Government continue to refuse to submit Manchester's application for this office—it must be submitted by the Government—we shall press on. We shall not sit still and accept the Government's answer. There are splendid people called Members of the European Parliament and others who can investigate the matter in Brussels. The European Commission's attitude towards Britain having this office would not be damaged by submitting Manchester's bid, so we ask the Government to reconsider the matter.
The Government have added insult to injury by their proposal to close the Manchester Patent Office. When Rayner studied the patent office he suggested the closure of the London office. He did not say that it should be transferred to Manchester, but he said that it should no longer be in London. We are now told that that proposal is inconceivable and, furthermore, that one could not expand the Manchester office without increasing the staff, because it would be unthinkable to reduce the staff in London. This circular argument, which we have heard many times, is debilitating to those who are trying to

restore Manchester as a regional centre, and it also affects the surrounding areas. I am sorry to have to raise the matter again, but despite the fact that we spend £2 billion or more on regional aid, the difficulties remain.
There are also many problems with boundaries. Greater Manchester is being damaged by the move to Warrington of about 40 firms because of the local benefits. There are bound to be problems with the constant battles for incentives between one geographical area and another. We have to look for alternatives. One of the alternatives is to generate the centres where we can concentrate on the best skills available in that area. I ask the Government, in considering these individual applications, to do so in the light of the necessity of maintaining those centres. If this country is ever to have a sane regional policy, it will do so only by generating specific important, large and dominating regional centres outside London.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I should like to raise, as my hon Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Sir P. Hawkins) has, the matter of the deportation of Mr. Stancu Papusoiu, the Romanian gentleman, because the House should not go into recess before the Government have taken this opportunity to set the record straight. I have read in the Sunday Express what I take to be an inaccurate and unusually unjust vilification of my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Home Office. I have sat in the Chamber while my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister have been attacked by both sides of the House, in my view wrongly. I invite my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to lay this bogy of the Government's inhumanity in this matter once and for all, and to confirm that the facts of the matter are as follows.
In April of last year Mr. Papusoiu turned up at Limehouse police station, where he was in due course interviewed in the presence of a Romanian interpreter. When he was asked why he had left Romania he said that he did not like life in Romania because he had had to work 10 hours a day and queue for food. He said that he had twice left the country illegally and suffered two months imprisonment. He said nothing about being persecuted for religious and political views, and nothing about serving nine years out of 10 in prison, as was subsequently alleged.
Is it right that the Home Office invited the British-Romanian Society to see Mr. Papusoiu and to take an interest in his case? In addition, was he not seen by the Free Romanian Press? Did the Government not follow the normal procedure of telling Mr. Landau, the representative in London of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees about the case, and was not every effort made to find another country for Mr. Papusoiu to go to? is not the fact of the matter that no other country would take him?
Is it not a fact that in September Mr. Papusoiu was interviewed again and that it was on that occasion that he changed his story? He then said that he had made five unsuccessful attempts to leave Romania, and that as a result he had served three separate sentences of three years imprisonment. He was asked why he had not mentioned that matter before and his reply was that he had not got around to doing so. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that?
In November of last year, was it not the position that he was told that his claim for refugee status was being rejected and that on hearing that he began to refuse food, threw the food when he was offered it at the prison officers who brought it and then was necessarily taken into a room without furniture? Is it not true that he was never forcibly fed and no allegations of maltreatment were ever recorded in the files at Ashford remand centre? Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, because it is a matter of great importance?
Did the United Kingdom immigrants advisory service then arrange temporary accommodation for Mr. Papusoiu while representations were made on his behalf, and because of that was he released from custody? Did all that happen, incidentally, while my hon. and learned Friend the Minister was a Minister in another Department? Did my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) then take up the matter on Mr. Papusoiu's behalf, and did a solicitor then make representations? In the course of these, were medical examination reports produced, and was it then alleged that Mr. Papusoiu had been in prison for five to six years, and did he say that for two of those years he had had chains round his ankles, chaining him to the floor of his cell?
Did Mr. Papusoiu allege that he had been assaulted in Ashford remand centre by 10 prison officers, no less, and hit repeatedly on his lower back and had his arms and legs trodden on? Did the medical report then show some minor injuries to his left arm only and no other injuries to his mouth, his back or his throat? Were there some marks of a kind on his legs, but no evidence that would reasonably have supported the allegations that he had been chained for years in any prison? Is it not true that at no time prior to Mr. Papusoiu's removal did anyone suggest to either my hon. and learned Friend the Minister or my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East that violence had been used against Mr. Papusoiu while he was in Ashford remand centre, other than appears in the account he gave to the doctor?
When, on Monday 14 March, it was reported to Mr. Papusoiu that he would be removed, did he not become hysterical, threaten to commit suicide and not to turn up? Was he asked to go away and come back again, which he duly did? Would my right hon. Friend clear up this matter? Is it not a complete travesty to suggest that Mr. Papusoiu was frogmarched to the aircraft by prison officers, and handcuffed? Are not the facts as follows? Was he not in the hands of Securicor staff, who have no handcuffs and no authority to hold anyone against his will, and that if Mr. Papusoiu had refused to board the plane, all that the Securicor staff could have done was to let him go and report the matter back to the immigration service?
If my right hon. Friend can confirm that all those are the facts, I submit that no fair-minded person in the country could suppose that the Government have behaved in this matter other than perfectly honourably and justly. It would be madness if all those who left an iron curtain or a totalitarian country felt that they had an automatic right to be treated as a refugee in Britain. The United Nations Commission for Refugees does not think that any automatic right should be bestowed on someone who leaves such a country. It would be crazy and monumentally unjust for us to allow ourselves in Britain to become known as the one nation on earth that has open

house for anyone who chooses to leave an iron curtain or totalitarian country. It would be crazy, because we should soon fill up all the available space in the land, and unjust, because it would mean the exclusion of many who have a prior right to settle here and who are patiently and in a law-abiding fashion awaiting their turn.
As the Prime Minister told the House today, and the Home Secretary told the House on Tuesday, this country has a proud tradition of dealing humanely and justly with those who genuinely seek refuge and asylum in our shores. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will confirm that the greatest sympathy and attention was clearly paid to this case but that this man, for all his protestations and his different accounts, did not qualify for the category of those to whom we feel necessarily obliged to give prior right to settle over all those who are lawfully waiting in the queue.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will reassure us all about the correctness of the facts as I have stated them and lay this particular bogy of this alleged governmental inhumanity thoroughly, utterly, and completely to rest before the House goes into recess.

Sir Anthony Meyer: After the issues of great moment involving human rights and individual freedom that have been raised in what has been one of the most interesting debates that I have listened to for a long time, I confess that the matter that I want to raise is of a perhaps more restricted interest. None the less it is a matter of great importance to a section of my constituents, who are concerned lest this House go away for its Easter holiday leaving a great cloud of uncertainty over their heads.
The matter that I want to raise refers to the treatment by the Inland Revenue of the income derived from the letting of self-service holiday apartments. Up to now, it has been generally accepted that as long as the person letting the accommodation provided some basic services, the income should be treated under case I as income from carrying on a trade or profession, and therefore eligible for the allowances that are available in such cases.
However, recent developments have thrown all that into doubt. There has been a most disturbing change in policy by the Inland Revenue involving the classification of income from self-catering holiday accommodation businesses. Whereas in the past the Inland Revenue readily accepted that income derived from the letting of self-catering holiday accommodation may be classified under schedule D, case I—that is, earned income—it appears that the district offices, to start with in Cumbria and now in north Wales, recently received instructions to review all previous classification decisions and, wherever possible, to re-classify them under case VI—that is, as unearned income.
Of course, this affects eligibility for capital gains tax rollover relief, age relief, grants under section 4 of the Development of Tourism Act and relief on interest payments on purchase loans, and in certain circumstances it will affect the point at which each proprietor becomes liable to investment income surcharge, although of course the position in that respect has been greatly alleviated by raising the threshold for investment income surcharge. All that could have a damaging effect on the availability of reliable self-catering holiday accommodation in areas such


as north Wales. It is a current major growth activity in an area which depends very largely on tourism, and on this particular kind of tourism.
Not long ago, the Inland Revenue sent out a directive to reclassify the income from the letting of self-catering accommodation from case I to case VI. The Inland Revenue has verbally admitted the existence of a directive to this effect. This policy began in the spring, it is being carried through systematically when each annual assessment comes up, and it is being extended throughout the country. In my opinion, it is directly counterproductive to the efforts of all who want to improve the contribution of tourism to the national economy.
Some of my hon. Friends have been to see Treasury Ministers about the matter. They were told that the Treasury is looking into the matter most carefully, but that it is not yet in a position to give a ruling. Certainly, the position is very uncertain. There has been a recent court decision, Griffiths v. Jackson, as a result of which it appears that it is no longer possible for Ministers by interpretation to provide any ruling which could possibly be satisfactory to the tourist industry. If that is so, it may be necessary to amend the Finance Bill, when it comes along.
I think that this is the first occasion on which this matter has been raised in the House. I take this opportunity to bring it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, if only to put on record the grave anxiety felt among tourist operators, particularly in my constituency. They believe that, little by little, the Inland Revenue may push forward its frontiers until it becomes extremely difficult for anyone to earn a reasonable living out of providing this type of holiday accommodation. Such accommodation, at any rate in my part of the world, is in greatest demand and is most suitable for the modest holidays that people in the north-west normally enjoy.

Mr. Harry Greenway: First, I should like to comment on the interesting speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), who raised the case of Mr. Stancu Papusoiu, the Romanian about whom so much has been heard in the House this week. While on the matter, may I draw attention to the extreme care with which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Waddington) handled the case of a constituent of mine, whose mother was forced to live in Prague in Czechoslovakia, another iron curtain country, against her will for a considerable time. I want to express my gratitude to my hon. and learned Friend both for the care that he took with the case, and for the fact that he has allowed this lady to come to spend her declining years in this country. It is proof of a very humane approach to those problems by the Home Office, and I am most grateful for it. I think that that should be said in the context of what has been said in the House this week.
Gipsies have been mentioned in this debate. I have a problem with gipsies in my constituency of Ealing. The West End ward in Ealing, North has enough pressures to live with, and cannot absorb a gipsy encampment, as has been suggested. Over the years, the Ealing council—admittedly, most of the time under Socialist control—has allowed many council houses to be built without improving the life of the people in the West End ward. They have been given no leisure centres. There is no local swimming pool, or even decent shops or large

stores, such as Marks and Spencers, although there are admirable small shops in the area. In approximately one square mile of the West End ward, there are no fewer than nine council estates. It is now suggested that a gipsy site should be set up in that area. It is a disgraceful and nonsensical suggestion.
In addition, the West End ward has a lorry park. It has to accept a fun fair three or four times a year. It has also been asked to take the proposed Hayes bypass. No other ward in Ealing has such high density living. I support the complaints of my constituents, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to assure us that the Government will not allow a gipsy encampment in such a highly built-up area.
Tomorrow morning I shall present a petition, arranged by the West End Conservatives and other community groups in the West End ward and Northolt. It has been arranged by Graham Hope and Mrs. Eileen Crofton, among others, as well as Councillor Dunkley. They have petitioned very strongly, and have collected 3,000 signatures in only a few days, against this development. I strongly support what they say, and I hope that the Government will support my constituents in this important matter.
As my central issue, I want to raise an important matter which should be raised in the House before we rise for the Easter recess. That is the serious failure of the Greater London council to maintain roads in London and the effect that that is having upon the capital and its trade. Traffic is moving more and more slowly, and that is seriously damaging industry. In my constituency and in the London borough of Ealing, there are more manufacturing jobs than in any other London borough. The people there are finding it more and more difficult to carry on their trade and move their goods about London, get goods to the airports, ports and railway stations, because of the bad maintenance of London roads by the GLC. Potholes damage vehicles and make life impossible for cyclists, who are having a terrible time. They have to ride at the side of the road where the potholes are at their worst. I do it regularly and get bumped and thrown about. Potholes are an additional hazard on London roads.
Perhaps the piece de resistance of the GLC's failure to ensure that the traffic is organised properly is the fiasco at Hyde park corner. It has spent no less than £75,000 on setting up lights and it cannot possibly have researched what the effect will be. There are miles and miles of traffic jams in every direction—down to Buckingham palace, around the wedding cake and beyond, belching out fumes over that beautiful edifice, down to Victoria station, right up to Picadilly and back down into Kensington.
The situation is intolerable. Before all this happened, the traffic was moving reasonably well. Now there is appalling chaos, hell and misery. For the sake of the people, commerce and visitors to London, will the GLC get rid of the traffic lights and let the traffic move? The cost to industry and the effect on the temper of drivers and everyone else affected by the traffic lights is very high.
There is another central wickedness and nonsense of the GLC in regard to traffic, which affects my constituency seriously. During the last GLC election the Labour party fought a duplicitous campaign in my constituency and in Hayes and Harlington. It promised the people of Hayes and Harlington that if they voted Labour they would get a by-pass to take the traffic away; at the same time it promised the people of Ealing, North that if they voted


Labour there would never be a by-pass terminating at the White Hart roundabout. On that false prospectus two Labour Members were narrowly elected. Those two gentlemen are now quarrelling artificially with each other, to try to justify their existence to their respective communities. As a result, the people of Northolt face the prospect of having a by-pass driven through to the White Hart roundabout.
The area is already besieged by traffic which causes danger to people, many of them children, trying to cross the road. The by-pass would bring into that area 22,000 more vehicles a day. Some people say that there would be 60,000 more vehicles per day; that may be true and I shall have to look into it. Certainly, at least 22,000 more vehicles a day will be coming into an area where there is already far too much traffic.
Drillings for the by-pass have already been started, although the GLC promised a community deputation from Northolt, led by me, that there would be no bypass until there had been a full public inquiry. Therefore, I am justified in using such terms as "duplicity" and "malpractice". I seek reassurance from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that the Government will call in those plans if any further attempt is made to construct the road with the intention of terminating it at the White Hart roundabout in Northolt before there has been a full and fair public inquiry. Nothing less will do. The people of Northolt are entitled to that assurance.
Then there is the fares fiasco of the Greater London council. It should be noted that the GLC doubled its rates last year and is putting them up this year by no less than 14 per cent., although inflation is running at about 4 per cent. Substantial sums of this money were earmarked to keep London fares low.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman. He must relate his speech to the question why the House should not adjourn. The Leader of the House is not responsible for the GLC.

Mr. Greenway: The important point is that the GLC has to be halted in its mismanagement of transport; otherwise the House would not be justified in rising. Also, the imposition of this enormous rate on the people of London is too serious to be allowed to pass without being brought to the attention of the House before it rises for the Easter recess.
When Labour took control of the GLC in May 1981, fares were at a level of, say, 100. By the ill-fated and so-called "Fairs Fair" scheme they were reduced to 68 in October. They jumped to 133 in March 1982 following the Law Lords' ruling. There have since been further court cases. Despite a 100 per cent. increase in rates last year and a 14 per cent. increase this year, the GLC has only got London fares back to where they were when the Conservatives lost control of the council. The whole of London is much worse off, more aggravated and more distressed by this appalling mismanagement.
When we learn, as I read yesterday morning, that London Transport achieved a surplus of £1 million last year, which is to be set against a projected deficit by the Labour GLC of £15 million—projected for its own purpose of misleading Londoners into thinking that they

have to pay higher and higher fares—I take a serious view of the way the GLC is misleading Londoners on this important matter. It will not do.
It is typical of the way the GLC is spending the rates. Londoners are getting through their doors streams of politically motivated literature; the cost to the ratepayers of a magazine called The Londoner is nearly £1 million. It does nothing but attack the Conservative Government which the country so enjoys. It is a disgrace.
I ask my right hon. Friend to do all he can to bring home to the GLC its need to pay proper respect to the spending of the money of ratepayers and to see that under no circumstances is it used for political purposes and for the projection of extreme Left-wing policies at County Hall in such a dubious way. If my right hon. Friend could do something about it, he would do a great service to the people of London.

Mr. Christopher Murphy: I associate myself with the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Montgomery) about the need to find an alternative to the manifestly unfair rates system. The public want to see it replaced urgently. I sincerely hope that decisions will not be long delayed.
I would also follow earlier comments by expressing my fears about the law relating to gipsies. My constituents have been suffering very much from this problem; the scales of justice seem often to be out of balance for law-abiding residents.
Before the House rises for the Easter recess, it should consider the important subject of small businesses and their valuable contribution to the United Kingdom economy. There can be no doubt that smaller firms are providing the basic source of net new jobs in the private sector. This must be encouraged. It is a matter of regret to my hon. Friends that small business in Britain accounts for a smaller proportion of output and employment than in any other major Western country.
However, it is a matter of celebration that the decline of small businesses is being reversed. Employment in firms with fewer than 100 employees has seen considerable recent growth. In my constituency, the importance of smaller firms has long been clear and in recent times many new and successful concerns have been started, to the benefit of the local community.
All experience shows that the small firms sector is the major channel for new enterprise and initiative in industry and commerce. Such companies can respond more quickly to changing marketing needs, which is essential in these days of increased technology. They also provide vital support in specialised activities for larger firms. That is particularly true in my constituency with regard to aerospace and pharmaceuticals, where Labour party threats of nationalisation could have a devastating effect on such entrepreneurial activity.
At the same time, small firms can provide a source of stability for local economies by removing any overdependence on a few large companies. It is right also to recognise that, as some older industries decline and shed labour, the take-up can come only from new enterprise providing the so-called seed corn from which the industries of the future will grow.
I am conscious that the word "enterprise" has already crept into my brief contribution to the debate. I wish to


concentrate on three policies associated with that word. The first is the Government's enterprise allowance scheme, which was recently the subject of an experiment in a number of areas and helped to create 2,000 new companies. I express my warm welcome for the Chancellor's decision to expand that scheme of giving £40 a week for a year to the unemployed to start up a small business, which in itself creates new jobs, and which will be of considerable benefit.
The second is the concept of the enterprise zone, unfortunately as yet denied to Welwyn and Hatfield. The notion of businesses within a designated area, or starting up there, being exempt from many taxes, planning restrictions and other costs is positive encouragement for enterprise and, again, the creating of new jobs. The third is the idea of the enterprise agency, which can be formed with Government encouragement to provide specialised advice in an area to help in the formation of new firms. That helping hand can be of immeasurable assistance, and once again creating new jobs would be a consequence.
The Government initially talked about an enterprise package as a term to embrace all their many policies to stimulate small businesses. The items in that package now number some 100, which is a further cause for satisfaction in difficult times and a further reason for me to use that word. However, additional assistance may still prove necessary.
Two other specific aspects of policy for small businesses could be of tremendous value to smaller firms. One is the role of employee participation and the other is privatisation. With regard to the former, employee involvement, in terms of both finance and consultation, can be of enormous benefit to work force and company alike. Many of our industrial relations problems have been created by outmoded approaches in outdated firms, so with firms of the future that should be avoided at the outset. With regard to the latter, it is to be hoped that privatisation will grow apace, bringing as it does a break-up of public authority monopolies. Whether it is refuse collecting, road cleaning or whatever, the opportunities for the ratepayer and the taxpayer to get better value for money are clear, but equally the opportunities for small, new and older businesses are apparent too.
In Welwyn and Hatfield, it is a matter of great satisfaction that many small businesses most successfully practise modern and realistic methods of employee involvement. The very style and atmosphere of the company make it clear which those are. Equally, in my constituency it is a matter of deep disappointment that Socialist doctrinaire intransigence has prevented the opportunities, as yet, for privatisation.
The common thread running through the Government's economic policies is the creation of an environment in which private enterprise and entrepreneurial flair can flourish. It is surely right, before the House rises for the Easter recess, that its impact on small businesses should be considered.

Mr. John Silkin: With every recess motion, my sympathy for the Leader of the House grows stronger. The number of things that the poor man has to promise to get through before he can get away becomes greater each time. On the other hand, it makes for an interesting debate. We have certainly had one in the past two and a half hours.
The speech of the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) was particularly moving. He wants, as do all men of good will, in his Province—and, I hope, outside, for him and for all mankind—peace and stability. I was particularly grateful to him for his reference to my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason). The task of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is often thankless. It requires a great deal of patriotism, courage and effort. I always thought that my right hon. Friend devoted himself very much to that function.
I shall leave the Leader of the House plenty of time to deal with all the matters that have arisen. I hope that the House will forgive me if I am a little selective. I can make the excuse that I do not have the ability to get all the answers with which I know the Leader of the House will be supplied to all the many queries that have been made. I have the much more agreeable task of picking and choosing a little that touches me most out of so many good and interesting speeches.
I say, in real friendship, to the Leader of the House that it is sometimes irritating when people raise matters—especially when they involve individuals—with which one does not agree. Nevertheless, it is a protection to hon. Members, the House itself and ultimately the country that they should be able to do so without necessarily having to go through the courts in defamation actions. You can imagine, Mr. Deputy Speaker, how personally it pains me to say it, because, as you will know, my profession benefits very much from the advice being taken that the Leader of the House gave. Nevertheless, it is more in the public interest that we preserve our rights on privilege.
The hon. Members for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks) and for Devon, West (Sir P. Mills) I remember as the terrible twins from the days when I was the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Their contributions took me back very much. I almost said that they took me back to happier days, but all days are happy in the House, so I shall not say that. We are at another pig cycle. Whether this is a pig cycle immediately following the pig cycle that I knew or whether there has been a pig cycle between the two, I do not know.

Sir Peter Mills: This is the third pig cycle.

Mr. Silkin: As the hon. Gentleman tells me, this is the third pig cycle. I congratulate both hon. Members on their ingenuity in finding new reasons for a pig cycle, other than the obvious ones, which Marshall in the 19th century first set out and which seemed to go on and on.
In my day, the reason for the pig cycle was the fact that I was Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and that I was not devaluing the green pound. It was devalued long ago. Now it is the high price of barley. That is interesting, because it is an illustration of the first farming principle that I was ever taught. That was that it was up horn and down corn or up corn and down horn. I do not know where we are now. It is down oink at the moment, whatever it may be.
I say in great friendship and with respect to two old friends of mine that there is another reason that is common to my day and to today. It is a thing called the Common Market and the common agricultural policy. As I suggested then, they should investigate that course with greater facility than they do.
The second thing that brought back old memories was rates, which were mentioned by the hon. Members for


Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Montgomery) and for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mr. Murphy). When I was the Minister for Planning and Local Government, that was the first thing on the agenda. The Layfield report was produced as a result. I was sent to Stockholm, where I was told that there was a new and splendid method of dealing with local government finance. It is a splendid town. I enjoyed my time there and all the discussions. I heard about how there was a great alternative to what we had in our country and how it preserved the domestic ratepayer. There was local income tax and a bit of poll tax. It was absolutely splendid. Unfortunately, three quarters of the visit was spent on their saying to me that they understood that we had a marvellous property tax called "rates", that it was very fair and cost very little. Would I please tell them all about it? So I begin to worry as time goes by. I think it is probably just having to pay that irritates people, rather than how they pay.
The other question that brought back memories of that time was that of caravan sites for gipsies. This problem is insoluble unless all authorities, not only those affected but those likely to be affected, are willing to combine to solve the problem. Of course, they are not. They very understandably feel that this is a nuisance and must be removed from their territory. Having got the gipsies on to the highway and on to the march they forget about them and the gipsies go to someone else's territory.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mr. Forrester) put his finger on the point: there must be some compulsion, sad though it is. There must be a knocking together of the heads of local authorities before we can ever solve the problem.
I set up the Cripps inquiry at the time. It recommended that sufficient money should be given to ensure that decent sites were laid out. The money was and is still provided but it has not ended the problem. The danger lies in the feeling: "Get them off our territory and into someone else's and the problem is solved."
I promised the House that I would do my best to see that the Leader of the House was able, with plenty of time and in a totally unhurried fashion, to answer every question, but there is one last question I must try to deal with before I yield to him. That is the point raised by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who rather cleverly took up a second heading of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North. He talked about unfair competition in the building of ambulances in the Irish Republic. It is curious how this has begun to affect one in a dozen different ways. I have counted a number of reasons why ambulances can be produced in the Irish Republic more cheaply than they are here and why such competition is unfair. I therefore hand this bit of ammunition to the hon. Gentleman.
In the first place, there appears to be no VAT paid on ambulances by the Irish. Why I do not know, but that is 15 per cent., and quite a large differential already. Second, they seem to use many young people, which means they pay less. Third, I am beginning to receive a number of complaints about the use of sprayed paint which is very cheap but which is also highly dangerous because it is a fire risk. I say to the hon. Gentleman and, if I may, to the Leader of the House, that this is something which, particularly in view of the use to which these vehicles are put, we all ought to be keeping our eyes on.
This has been an interesting and wide-ranging debate. I apologise to those hon. Gentlemen whom I have not mentioned in the course of this speech, but I am sure that the Leader of the House will be able to deal with their queries much more eloquently than I could hope to do.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Biffen): This has been a very entertaining and constructive debate. It has many pitfalls, one of which is that I am asked to reply to a wide range of questions, which invests me with the wholly unreal appearance of being able to answer for the Government on these measures. Not only is this unreal—much more dangerous, it is a temptation. If occasionally I fall for the temptation and do actually answer, I hope my hon. Friends will treat it in the jocular fashion it merits. Otherwise they may assume that every point that has been raised will be reported to the appropriate Government Department and answers will, I hope, be dispatched in due course.
I would like to make a brief comment on a matter raised by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham), just outside the ambit of this debate. He referred to the Local Authorities (Expenditure Powers) Bill which it is proposed shall be debated next Wednesday. I wish to tell him—I make no complaint, because I have raised this on my own initiative and without having had the chance to tell him—that I will take note of the issue that he raised. I perfectly understand that the Bill as now drafted cannot be turned into the kind of Bill that he would wish as a result of its receiving a Second Reading. I cannot in any sense guarantee that I can meet his objection, but I should like to look at the Bill and I would not like him to feel that he had made his gesture without any response from me.
I join the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) in saying that the moment we address ourselves to any contribution from the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) we do so in the knowledge of the suffering that his Province undergoes and the fortitude with which its people bear their burdens. I recognise that uncertainty is at the heart of the difficulties in the Province; if I say that I further wish to identify myself with what the right hon. Gentleman said in underlining how much respect I also have for the work done by the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) as Secretary of State for the Province, he will realise the importance to be attached to securing a military position which will be central to that stability. I very much hope that recent economic measures will be sustained and that the recent political developments will not be so dire as the hon. Gentleman has often feared. I appreciate also the hon. Gentleman's courtesy in providing me with the text of his remarks.
My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Montgomery) referred to rates and, more particularly, to the disadvantageous rate support grant settlement for Trafford. I know that he has been very active in pursuing this matter and I am sure that he will be glad to know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has today confirmed in an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) that he can now accede to the representations he has received from Trafford, from my hon. Friends and from others. He now proposes to extend the 1983–84 grant arrangements so as to "safety net" the main cause of the


grant loss affecting Trafford and others. I hope that will get the appropriate headline in the Manchester Evening News.

Mr. Fergus Montgomery: I thank my right hon. Friend. I am not really interested in headlines in the Manchester Evening news; headlines in the Sale and Altrincham Messenger and the Altrincham and Sale Guardian would be much better. Can he say approximately how much money Trafford will get in this very generous donation?

Mr. Biffen: Not without notice.
My hon. Friend ranged rather more widely over the future of local authority finance, over the importance of charging for services—for example, installing water meters on a more extensive scale—and the improvement in cost containment by putting out to private contract many of the services now undertaken by the local authority itself. I note what my hon. Friend has said. As for when we may hear more of the Government's wider proposals on rating reform, I am afraid I am not in a position to answer that, except that I am certain that it will not happen by Maundy Thursday.
Gipsies were initially mentioned by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mr. Forrester), but a number of other hon. Members mentioned them, including my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway). He deftly brought out the fact that the issue extends not only to the countryside but to many of our urban and suburban areas.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North put me in a reasonably safe and secure position because he asked if I could guarantee to introduce legislation by May day. I cannot do so. That brutally realistic reply has immediately caught a reaction of appreciation from the right hon. Member for Deptford. I know that the matter is of real concern, especially to local authorities. It is as much a problem in north Shropshire as it is in north Staffordshire. It enables our constituents to perceive the dark side of the black economy. There is not too great a charitable concern towards the itinerants. There is a real desire for some equity because the itinerant population carries many of the benefits of being in the country without making any contribution. I shall ensure that the matter is referred to the Department of the Environment.
My hon. friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer), whom I am delighted to welcome to the debate, made a powerful plea on behalf of his constituents about the recent change in Inland Revenue practice as it affects those letting accommodation for self-catering. The Treasury is well aware of the matter, as my hon. Friend has made direct representations. However, I shall ensure that the debate is a means of double banking that representation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North mentioned a number of problems with roads, especially in Northolt. I know that he wants that matter considered before Easter. I also noted his comments about the Hyde park corner travel hazards. He may have heard our hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) mention that matter during business questions earlier today.
My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester) made an eloquent and well-argued plea for the European Community trade marks office being located in Manchester. My right hon. and

noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade, who will be more dispassionate in these matters than his obdurate and blinkered predecessor, will have the opportunity to consider those arguments. I have a feeling that, although the debate has been around for quite a while, it is nowhere near its conclusion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks) mentioned pigs. As the right hon. Member for Deptford said, it is nice to escape from the tedious world of urban politics to what I am sure is an illusory romanticism about rural communities. I found the pigs debate absolutely fascinating. I have been exposed to pigs. I shall ensure that his two arguments for an increase in export refunds and a producer rebate of £2 a pig, paid at the point of slaughter, are considered by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
I was interested in my hon. Friend's conclusions. He said that the common agricultural policy had an imbalance between animal and crop husbandry, which was especially evident in the current price structure. I must be careful not in any sense to make any observations that could be even remotely taken as indicative of Government policy. That imbalance existed from the very inception of British membership of the EC. One of the major tasks must be, by one means or another, to claw back to a more satisfactory position with a better balance between those two aspects of our national farming. Only we can do that. We will not find too many people elsewhere anxious to give us a helping hand in that task—it is uniquely a task for us.
My hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West (Sir P. Mills) raised issues which, although they could be described as constituency matters, go wider than that. We cannot think of tourism, the holiday trade and the whole national exodus to the west country in the summer without realising the importance of his points.
The Government are well aware of the importance to Devon and Cornwall of the A30, and are determined to improve it as soon as possible. It is unfortunate that the inspector fell ill shortly after the conclusion of the controversial Okehampton bypass inquiry. Since his report was received, special arrangements have been made to examine it urgently. Inevitably, that will take some time. The main report alone consists of 612 pages. My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Transport and for the Environment will announce their decision as soon as possible.
The inspector's report on the adjacent Whiddon Downs section is expected shortly. In the meantime, possible ways to improve safety and traffic conditions on that section are being urgently considered with the Devon county council. It will report to us in the next week or so. The Secretary of State expects to make a decision shortly on the Roadford reservoir. I shall draw his attention to my hon. Friend's remarks.

Sir Peter Mills: How long is shortly? We have been waiting a long, long time.

Mr. Biffen: Time acquires a sharper focus in an election year. I rest my cheerful answer on that enigmatic interpretation.
I was interested in what my hon. Friend had to say about the future of Dartmoor. He will realise that, when he mentioned legislation, I recoiled because I could not immediately envisage time being available through the


agencies of Government. However, a private Member's Bill may be introduced, or the Devon country council may introduce a Bill.
Anybody who has followed the rather turbulent issue of the wetlands in central Somerset will realise that it is a matter of great delicacy. A number of legitimate interests must be balanced. My hon. Friend did the House a service by raising the issue today, using the pretext of the recess Adjournment debate.
I shall couple the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North, who were both concerned about unfair trade practices. It is interesting to note that those unfair practices came from sister nations of the European Community. My hon. Friend referred to ambulances from the Irish Republic and the hon. Gentleman to ceramic tiles from Italy. These matters have been referred to my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade. The European Commission has responsibility for determining whether there are unfair trading practices within the Community. It is a healthy reminder of how we have to fight our corner. These are issues which are brought to a national Parliament because it is appropriate that these matters should be thrashed out here. The points that have been raised are well taken.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. There is one point on which he can take action. I understand that it is the specification for ambulances in this country that because they are fibreglass they should be properly impregnated rather than spray-painted or painted in any other way because of the fire hazard. It is my understanding—like that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin)—that the ambulances coming from the Republic of Ireland are spray-painted rather than impregnated. This should be taken into account and the DHSS could issue an instruction to the regional health authorities to stop this abuse.

Mr. Biffen: I will certainly see that this point is brought to the attention of the most appropriate authority.
I come now to the series of substantial questions that were put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield, who clearly felt liberated from the £133 million writ. He has walked around with a cheerful spring in his heels over these past months. This of course was because of his total confidence in the rightness of his cause—as indeed events have demonstrated.
He put to me issues which, as he very rightly said, although they were related to his own personal expenses, raised much more substantial matters that were of interest to the House and to a wider public. I will record them accordingly because I know that he will wish from this point onwards to campaign for a revelation of the answers to the points which he raised and quite properly believes to be of substantial public interest.

Mr. Winterton: Do I have my right hon. Friend's support in this campaign, and that of the Government, to reveal exactly what happened so that the people of this country and the Members of the House have the facts as to why the Government withdrew police investigations as and when they did?

Mr. Biffen: I am not being drawn beyond what I have just said. I have given generous comments on the points which have been raised by my hon. Friend and I hope that he will take them in that spirit.
I turn now to the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mr. Murphy), in which he eloquently argued the virtues of small businesses and, more to the point, how there is now tangible evidence that this sector of the economy is expanding. Although it remains relatively small in the totality of economic activity, I believe that it was always foreseen that this would be the economic area which would be the harbinger of economic recovery and growing employment prospects. He made his case very persuasively. Whether he will be rewarded with an enterprise zone in Welwyn and Hatfield this side of a general election, I am not sure, but I can certainly say that it will not be this side of Easter.
The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) upbraided me for the way in which I reacted over our exchanges earlier this afternoon. I think that we are both sufficiently thick in the skin and long in the tooth not to be unduly sensitive about these matters. I should like to place on record my own feelings as a general principle. Privilege is essential for the proper working of the House but, like all such things, it must be exercised with a certain amount of self-restraint; otherwise the situation easily deteriorates and after a while we find that we excite public contempt rather than respect in that context. If, therefore, I occasionally seem to be more zealous than the hon. Gentleman might wish about limiting the area in which fairly robust comments such as he made this afternoon are made, I hope that he will realise that the last thing I wish to do is restrain him. Indeed, he and others of his ideological disposition are essential for a continuing Tory victory at the next election.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the possibility of a Board of Trade inquiry into the Laker collapse. Such an inquiry may well be recommended by the receiver who is investigating the affair. I will none the less relay to my right hon. and noble Friend the conviction of the hon. Gentleman that there should be a Board of Trade inquiry.
The hon. Gentleman then spoke about the Press Council in the Sutcliffe case. It was a fascinating small-scale debate—although not exactly a debate, because I fear that the hon. Gentleman alone contributed to it, and it reminded me of how many good debates are lost to the House because of pressures of time. We shall have to come back to this topic. It has been the subject of an early-day motion. I hope that there will be some chance for an hon. Member who is lucky with Adjournments to raise the subject, because it is a proper matter of concern for this House. That does not mean that I am providing any Government time whatsoever. I had better say that at this stage, or there will be a monstrous misunderstanding.
Coming now to the question of Mr. Papusoiu, the Romanian who was returned to his country, my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Sir P. Hawkins) is understandably most anxious to be reassured on this issue, which he feels touches the kind of concern for human rights issues which has traditionally been a hallmark of British public life. I hope that my hon. Friend's anxiety will have been assuaged to some extent by what I thought was a formidable speech by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence). He asked if the case that my hon. and learned Friend argued was thought by me to be accurate and, although I


am not in the most authoritative position to give this confirmation, I certainly believe it to be essentially accurate.
I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West that, having heard the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister, we must appreciate that the question is whether Mr. Papusoiu did or did not qualify for refugee status as defined by the United Nations convention on refugees. I understand that anxieties on this matter persist and I will of course see that they are referred to the appropriate Government Departments and particularly to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
I will conclude by referring to what I think was in many ways a true House of Commons speech—that given by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) relating to the late Alan Grimshaw and the evidence he gave about roof supports. The hon. Gentleman made a very powerful and, indeed, moving speech. In a sense it was very sad, in the circumstance in which it was delivered, of the very recent death of Alan Grimshaw. As an obituary it was most delicately and effectively expressed.
The House, in making a judgment, will have to decide just what should be done in the light of the finding of the Committee of Privileges, because it investigated the problem to determine whether or not Mr. Grimshaw had suffered as a result of giving evidence to a House of Commons Committee. The Committee of Privileges unanimously concluded that there was no indication that Mr. Grimshaw's treatment was adversely affected by his having been a witness before Parliament. As with all such issues, hon. Members will want to go away and reflect. They will want to read the speech of the hon. Gentleman. I thank him for raising the subject and for the way in which he did it.
The motion is that we adjourn on Maundy Thursday and come back on Monday week. It is but a short break; it is therefore consistent with the time normally allowed for the recess. I believe that anyone looking at the working of Parliament over the last few months, not merely as it is recorded by the media but as we know and experience it, would say that we had earned the break and that we should come back the better for it.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House at its rising on Thursday 31st March do adjourn till Monday 11th April and at its rising on Friday 29th April do adjourn till Tuesday 3rd May and that this House shall not adjourn on Thursday 31st March until Mr. Speaker shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Acts which have been agreed upon by both Houses.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (NO. 2) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 93A (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

System-built Housing

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Mr. Joseph Dean: I rise to introduce the debate on the problems of housing built by industrial and semi-industrial systems, not in a spirit of outright criticism of the Government or in any attempt to blame the Government for the position in which we find ourselves. The Government's problem is one of inheritance. Moreover, I do not speak only from hindsight, because I was one of those who predicted that the introduction of such a system would eventually produce the difficulties in which we now find ourselves. In assuming the role of chairman of the housing committee in Manchester in 1971 my first action was to formulate and implement a policy decision to discontinue the use of such systems and revert to building solely by traditional means.
The attempt over the years to use industrial and semi-industrial housing to supplement the traditional method of building houses for the public sector in order to cure our housing problems—for example, slum clearance and gross over-crowding—is now shown to have failed abysmally. In fact, it may be said to have almost killed the patient.
Evidence mounts weekly—almost daily—that few if any of the systems that were mainly introduced after the second world war are standing the test of time or giving value for money. More and more local authorities are being faced with the decision of either spending large sums of money to rectify structural defects that have appeared or are appearing, or cutting their losses and deciding to demolish the properties even though some of the developments have run only 15 of the statutory loan period of 60 years.
It would be no good highlighting the problem without examining what went wrong and where and to whom we must apportion the blame. I say that not in an attempt to become involved in a witch hunt, but to ensure that, as most of the buildings are disgorged from our housing stock, as they will have to be, we turn to the more traditional building materials—bricks and mortar—which are superior in value both in financial and aesthetic terms.
The main factor in creating the position in which we now find ourselves was the policy of successive Governments of both colours who, to accelerate the building programme, turned to system-built houses to top up the then target of 300,000 houses or flats per year to 400,000. Despite strong objections from local authority representatives and officers on a wide scale, local authorities were cajoled, induced, or, by means of the


adjustment of the subsidy system, blackmailed into adopting these forms of building, with the resultant problems.
One other factor that was used to persuade people to follow that course of action was the prediction that, as the programmes got under way, the cost per unit would eventually be cheaper than building by the traditional methods. Even that premise was finally proved false, because when the final costings were produced for the system-built programmes the cost was on average approximately 20 per cent. higher than the traditionally built counterpart.
In apportioning blame it is obvious that a considerable responsibility must lie with the building companies that designed, built and marketed the systems, with the full approval of successive Governments of, as I said, both colours, and there is no comfort in telling the local authorities that are now faced with the immense problems with which the failure of these building systems leaves them that, at the time of erection, they had full Government and ministerial approval. Somebody has to pick up the bill for this fiasco and it ought not to be council house tenants, who, unless the Government intervene financially, will have to bear the cost on their rents—in some cases for the next 40 to 50 years.
Let me illustrate the financial consequences of the policy. The Hunslet Grange development is in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), who is in the Chamber. That development was built 14 years ago at a cost of £4·93 million—almost £5 million. Over 15 years there have been remedial costs of £1·5 million, making a total of £6 million-plus. The decision was taken last year to demolish those properties as they were no longer lettable and were deemed to be structually dangerous. The outstanding loan debt is £4·76 million. In replacement terms that is £863,000 per year from the Leeds city council housing revenue account and 22p per week on every council house rent in Leeds for the next 40 years. That is for just one development in the city of Leeds, excluding payments to people who have been inconvenienced. Almost every other local authority with large housing stocks has inherited a similar problem, including Hull, Sheffield, Bristol, Leicester and Manchester, which, in using the Bison and Camus systems, had a problem two and a half to three times greater than that being experienced in Leeds.
In an Adjournment debate last June I warned the Minister that the problems now emerging in the properties that I have mentioned, which are all deck-access flats, were but the tip of an iceberg that was surfacing fast and that low-rise system-built dwellings would follow suit sooner or later. I said that a conservative estimate of the cost of dealing with the problem would be a minimum of £3,000 million. Although I have recently stated that figure again in the House, the Minister has not seen fit to deny it. There was an extensive article in Building, I think in February, quoting figures that made £3,000 million look insignificant. That is the size of the problem that is now upon us.
Since that Adjournment debate the Government have accepted responsibility for the Airey houses and there has been a ministerial statement on the deterioration of Orlit houses. Although those two systems were amongst the first to be used, they will not see out the agreed loan period

unless vast sums of money are made available for remedial purposes. Other systems developed and used much more recently are already showing rapid deterioration and serious defects and will have to be dealt with sooner or later.
This is the most urgent housing problem facing future Governments and should have the highest priority for resources and finance. The Government should accept some of the financial liability for those mistakes, as they were the main driving force in introducing those types of buildings. I say "the Government" but of course I mean not the present Government, but preceding Governments. They should not offload the cost solely on to council house rents. By any standards it would be grossly unfair to expect present council house tenants, and future ones, to carry the financial burden for the situation that has arisen and for which they were in no way responsible.
I have persistently requested the Minister to deal with this problem in an evenhanded manner and, having accepted responsibility to provide financial assistance to people who have bought Airey houses from their local authorities, to extend that aid to people who have purchased non-Airey homes from local authorities.
I cite two cases involving my constituents. Names and addresses are available if required, but I know that the House will accept that these are genuine cases. One bought a Caspen-type house six years ago and now finds himself with a bill approaching £10,000 to remedy structural defects. That is not an isolated case. In my constituency there are several people with a similar problem, both on that estate and on another one. I predict that some hon. Members present tonight will hear from some of their constituents who are experiencing the same problem.
The next case that I quote is of a constituent who bought a house from the local authority 15 years ago. He is now desirous of selling and has had the property valued. It is on the market for sale at £2,000 less than the recommended market value price, but as yet has not had one offer, because the house is system-built. Does the Minister agree that the policy of selling council houses in such cases has landed those people with an albatross round their necks for the rest of their lives? It is clear that all system-built houses are suspect. No one investing money or life savings would even look at buying such houses.
Finally, let me deal with the problems facing local authorities with such accommodation in their stock. The Minister gave what I considered to be a totally unsatisfactory answer to the question that I put to him on this subject yesterday, when he said that Leeds had received an additional £9 million for capitalised repairs. He said that Leeds had accepted that. It has got to accept it, because it has no other means of raising money.
Is it not a fact that this money will have to be raised by Leeds by increasing council rents or rates substantially, or both? In other words, Leeds is being given permission to spend more of its own money. My contention is that it ought to be Government grant in real cash terms and not just permission for increased spending. To ensure that I was right on this subject I raised the question this morning by telephone with the chief executive of Leeds city council, who assured me that my interpretation was right.
The Under-Secretary some time ago said in the House in answer to a question that I put to him that Leeds could have found this money by increasing council rents in accordance with the Government's diktats. I maintain that it would be grossly unfair to place this burden on people


who had no say in decisions that have brought about the present position. It means that young people getting married, who hope to be council tenants, will be expected to carry the burden on obtaining the tenancy of a house in the city of Leeds. That is an obscene idea by any standards.
This is the most serious housing problem with which Members have to deal. Future Governments will be faced with it for some time to come. I hope that the debate tonight will go some way towards focusing the nation's mind on this serious problem.

Mr. Chris Patten: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Dean) for giving hon. Members an opportunity of debating this extremely important subject. He made a thoughtful speech. He has spoken on this subject on several occasions in the past. He has given me the opportunity of raising one aspect of this matter which is of considerable concern to the Bath city council—the local authority in my constituency—and to several of my constituents who live in Unity-type dwellings as tenants and those who have bought Unity-type dwellings.
I shall be brief in setting out the sad history of this issue. Between 1947 and 1958 235 Unity dwellings were built in my constituency. The construction of those homes was the result of the Government's encouragement of prefabricated systems for precisely the reasons adduced by the hon. Member for Leeds, West. The Unity homes were on the Ministry of Works approved list when the Bath city council opted, in those days, for that system and began construction. By May of last year 59 of those Unity dwellings had been sold to their then tenants, a matter which, at least until the defects were discovered would, I imagine, have gladdened all our hearts including that of my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Mr. Stanley).
The faults in the system came to light as the result of the issue by the Building Research Establishment of guidance on the inspection of structural columns in relation to the Airey houses. The Airey houses had no special relevance to my constituency because it contains none of them. But the director of the estates management department in Bath and the estates committee, showing great prudence— I quote from the report which went to the estates committee in November of last year—believed that it was important
to apply the principles of concrete analysis as set out in the BRE guidelines to the Unity-type dwellings which appeared somewhat similar in construction".
The results of the subsequent investigations showed the corrosion of the reinforcement embedded in the concrete because of excessive levels of chloride and carbonation. That is a story with which several hon. Members are, sadly, all too familiar.
Of the 230-odd Unity dwellings in the city, 59 were found to be more or less satisfactory after investigation, and of those 59, 53 were owned by the city with tenants living in them and six by the families who lived in them. The number of houses that were in a bad or doubtful condition was 171. Of those 118 were owned by the city council and 53 were owner-occupied.
The city council concluded that the damage could only be made good either by the complete replacement of the affected columns or by the substitution of those columns

by some other form of construction. In carrying out that type of rehabilitation work, it is not possible in every circumstance to distinguish between a house that is owned by the council and one that is owner-occupied. Where there are semi-detached homes, often one is owned by the city council and the house next door owned by the family who live in it. It is quite impossible to carry out work on one of those two houses. Work must be carried out on both. Therefore, one cannot make a hard and fast distinction between the homes owned by the city council and those that are owner-occupied. Whether the home is rehabilitated by the city council or by the owner-occupier, and whichever of the methods suggested by the city council is used, it is a mighty expensive business. It is expensive for the council, and causes considerable hardship to tenants while the work is being carried out. For owner-occupiers, it is of course extremely expensive. An appalling bill is hanging over the heads of the 53 owner-occupiers of Unity homes.
Those people were properly encouraged by the Government to purchase homes that previous Governments had encouraged the local authority to build. Caveat emptor is all very well as a principle, but the history of this issue shows that successive Governments also needed a bit of watching. I went with a delegation from Bath to see my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young). He met us most civilly and courteously with his officials, just as one would expect of him. Since that meeting the Minister has announced an investigation into system-built housing throughout the country. That is a considerable task, but I hope that it can be carried out as soon as possible.
My main point is that Unity home owners and tenants should be relieved of their anxiety as quickly as possible. As soon as we can we should make it clear that we intend to treat Unity home owners, and councils that have Unity system dwellings, in exactly the same way as we have treated Airey home owners and councils with many of those dwellings. In other words, we need to treat Unity housing with the same generosity as the Minister displayed in his announcement in September towards Airey home owners and towards councils with many Airey homes. It would need much more evidence than has so far been given me or, indeed, exists, to convince me that Airey and Unity homes are in completely different categories.
I realise that the Minister has used such words as "exceptional" and "unique" when talking about the Airey case. However, some of the distinctions that are made between Airey and Unity houses fall well within the realms of casuistry. The main reason for the defects in Unity houses is the same as that for the defects in Airey houses. It is the carbonation of concrete and the presence of chlorides. An additional factor—the third factor mentioned by the Building Research Establishment—is the lack of concrete cover to the reinforcing tube, but arguably that is not a design fault. In many cases, it has arisen because of the misplacement of the tube during the manufacture of the column. Several other distinctions between Airey and Unity homes are mentioned. For example, it is said that deterioration could lead to the collapse of an Airey house without warning and that since the Airey defects are the result of a fundamental design error, they apply to all Airey homes.
When the delegation from Bath of which I was a member went to see the Minister, it gave him a good deal


of evidence disputing both of those propositions. I shall not go into all the details now of some of the more arcane matters concerning concrete technology, about which I am all too inexpert. However, I should like to raise one point concerning the variations in the construction of Airey homes. Some have internal concrete blockwork linings, just like the Unity homes in my constituency. I understand that the Building Research Establishment argues that such an inner lining provides additional stability. Presumably, the additional stability applies to Airey as well as to Unity homes. However, that argument is used against the proposition that Unity homes should be given the same help as Airey homes. It is curious, unconvincing and wholly unacceptable.
This House has an old and quite proper prejudice against hybridity in our legislation. We properly believe that the law should apply equally to everyone. Similarly, the administrative decisions taken by Departments should apply equally to everyone. We cannot treat one group with appropriate generosity—as my hon. Friend the Minister has done in the case of Airey home owners—and then deny similar treatment to a group that to all intents and purposes is in exactly the same position. I realise that it would be expensive to treat other groups in the same way as the Airey home owners and as those councils that have many Airey homes in their areas. However, it is perfectly possible to find the money. I do not want to go over the arguments about the Budget, or to point out, once again, that ours is the tightest fiscal stance of any country in the OECD. Those are subjects that can be discussed on other occasions, but they are legitimate points to make.
It is also reasonable to point out that a little more assistance for the construction industry might come in handy, particularly in those areas in which it still needs the kiss of life.
The important point is that the Department of the Environment has established a precedent. I am sure that it will want—or will be obliged by the House—to act on it when cases similar to that of Airey housing arise. I hope that the investigation of the Building Research Establishment will be concluded as rapidly as possible. Following that, I also hope that an early decision will be made to increase the HIP allocation in local authority areas such as Bath that are faced with substantial bills. After the investigation, I hope that we shall give Unity owners the same rights as the owners of Airey houses and that all that can be done quickly. Indeed, I appeal to the Minister to ensure that it is done quickly. Many people are worried about the bills that face them and we should set their minds at rest as soon as possible.

Mr. Robert Litherland: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Dean) on having the initiative to introduce this debate. As he rightly explained, this issue has now become an overriding housing priority. I was very privileged to become a member of Manchester city council in 1971, when my hon. Friend was the chairman of the housing committee. He was instrumental in a policy decision not to build any more of those high-rise, deck-access, system-built developments, and Manchester is very grateful for that.
Our direct works department began the building of low-rise, traditional brick and mortar housing, and there was great demand for it. It certainly offered better prospects than the rubbishy system-built housing. Indeed, maintenance of the monstrosities built in the 1950s and 1960s was subsidised by direct works housing. Slum clearance has accounted for about 80,000 homes and we in Manchester are proud of our housing.
Like most major authorities, we had these system-built estates thrust upon us. We have major estates on the south side of Manchester: the Hulme estate, developed in the Regency style, the Moss Side development, and Turkey lane, a split-level Italian design estate. They are now a joke. They are falling around people's shoulders. The Turkey lane estate is fighting for survival.
Above all, we have the notorious Bison development. It was nicknamed "the forts" because it resembled battlements. It looks as though it could be blown down but my constituents are demanding that it be blown up. Bison Concrete (Northern) Limited built the Wellington street housing estate between 1969 and 1973. That development was already in the pipeline and could not be stopped. If we had had the power to stop it, I am sure that, under the leadership and guidance of people such as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West, we would have done. It was a package contract based on outline drawings, prepared by the then director of housing, and detailed drawings and specifications prepared by the contractor.
The estate was completed in 1973. It is no exaggeration to say that it has been an utter disaster. At the time, the system was presented as the solution to the problem of mass housing needs. It was foisted on local councils by, it is right to say, different Governments. It has failed miserably.
The building of these monstrosities involved the use of industrialised, factory-based construction of new designs and materials. When people were confronted with the balsa wood models and architects' impressions of the new estates, they felt that they were walking into a new Utopia. They have had a douche of cold water.
These systems were referred to by the experts and our advisers at that time as the panacea for all our housing problems. We have ended up with a complete disaster. At that time there were great profits to be made. There were lucrative killings to be made and the people's housing needs became secondary. Now, ten years later, Manchester realises that it has been taken for a ride by the bandwagon of hastily drawn-up plans and untried methods.
The policy committee took the brave decision to demolish the buildings when it realised that it could not save the Wellington estate. The demolition of an estate which was built only ten years ago is a disgrace.
On my way from Manchester to London, I pass prefabs that were built during the war. They were supposed to have a ten-year life. They are still up today. We are talking about knocking down a system-built estate which was supposed to last for at least 40 or 50 years. During the time that the estate has been up there has been a catastrophic catalogue of repairs. Out of 1,018 dwellings on that estate, 450 complaints have been received about rain coming in through the roofs and balconies. No fewer than 320 out of 400 concrete supports have now cracked. Window frames have rotted and had to be replaced. Almost the whole of the front of the flats has had to be replaced. The


replacement of one is extremely costly. The drainage was ineffective. Condensation and dampness were widespread. This is an immense problem with system-built houses.
I can give an example of a man dying from cancer in one of our local hospitals. His wife came to see me at my advice bureau. She said, "I cannot allow him to die in disgraceful conditions like this." I went to see the flat. The walls and ceiling were covered with fungus. I did not think it right that a man should die in such conditions. We brought in the direct labour department to clean the flat with a fungicidal wash so that a man could die with some dignity. That is an example of some of the problems brought about by this rubbishy building.
Some of the worst structural faults were not at ground level but six floors up—sixty feet above the ground. Architects have suggested extensive remedial work, design improvements, entryphone systems, lift barriers, heating systems, including central heating, cladding and extra caretakers, but all to no avail. It has placed a burden of enormous costs on the city of Manchester.
The city architect estimated that it would cost a further £9 million and that even that sum could not guarantee success. The decison was then taken to demolish the estate. However, social costs outweigh financial costs. Tenants have paid the price in intolerable living conditions and ill health. We have a tragic yet predictable position. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West said, while the monstrous, shoddy nature of this type of housing is now generally accepted—except by Bison, which thinks that there is no need for alarm—there has been no commitment by the Government to tackle the problem and put right the injustices suffered by council tenants.
There are over 30,000 Bison dwellings in Great Britain. I sent a letter to the Secretary of State for the Environment in which I pointed out:
The Manchester dilemma can be experienced right across the country, in Brent, Hillingdon, Birmingham, Liverpool, Bradford and many other places. The Bison Wall-Frame system has been proved a disaster and cost untold million of pounds to taxpayers and ratepayers in this country.
Local government faces the problem of deciding whether to continue throwing good money away by trying to rectify the latent difficulties which, in Manchester, have proved to be irreparable or demolish them and continue to pay the loan debt charge for the next 50 years, plus the cost of replacing these new homes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West was correct when he said that Governments have played a key role in promoting industrialised building. They coerced and cajoled local authorities into believing that they were the new Jerusalem.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Is it not right also that the local authorities took the decision and accepted the responsibility when they put these buildings up?

Mr. Litherland: Yes, if one accepts that ultimately it is the responsibility of elected representatives. However, a great deal of pressure was put on local authorities to provide high density housing. There were grants, and the local authorities were pressurised. There were massive lobbies. There were officers and experts telling local councillors—

Mr. Joseph Dean: Is it not a fact that the Governments of the day—I blame no particular party—were responsible for altering the subsidy systems to a high density subsidy

which introduced maisonettes and this type of development? People were told that if they wished to stay and live in the city, which was their traditional birth place, this was the only way they could do so. Some of us maintained that this was wrong. Unfortunately, we lost the argument.

Mr. Litherland: My hon. Friend is right. I cannot elaborate on what he says. There was extra money for high-density living.
The Government also subsidised the big builders in this bonanza. Every right-thinking person must surely believe that it is right that they face up to their social responsibilities. Homes should not be a commodity produced for private profit. They should fulfil a basic human need.
I have raised this matter previously in the Chamber and in Committee. I have sent letters to the Minister. Delegations have been to see the Minister. There have been two forms of approach. The first is that the Government should find ways and means of helping to meet the costs involved. The second is that the Government, faced by this national scandal, should at least hold a public inquiry into the Bison group. Justice should be done by placing the blame firmly where it belongs—on the jerry builders and designers who have caused so much suffering and made so much profit.

Sir Albert Costain: I wish that I could follow the hon. Member for Manchester. Central (Mr. Litherland) in his detailed analysis of these regrettable flats in Manchester. However, as I do not possess a detailed knowledge of the matter, I cannot pursue his remarks. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the name of Bison. My mind turns immediately to the Bison floor, a concrete floor that has enjoyed a tremendous reputation over a number of years. If my memory serves me right, some of the products are to be found in the building where we now stand. I would wish to know more about those who designed the houses and flats that have been mentioned and the reasons for the design that was adopted.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Central spoilt his case by saying that private enterprise should not play a part in housing and that this activity should be left to local authorities. I am proud to say that more than 50 hon. Members live in Dolphin square in flats designed by private enterprise for which I take some responsibility. Those flats have given no trouble for over 50 years, apart from half a dozen bricks being out of place. That type of building could have been repeated time and again if the then Socialist Government had undertaken to do something about the Rent Acts. However, as tonight's debate is not concerned with that, I leave it to one side.
The debate relates to what has loosely been called prefabricated building. I think that I know more about prefabricated building than any hon. Member and also many people in the Minister's Department. The reason why I know about it is that at the time that Nye Bevan was Minister of Health, at the end of the war, I was given a special assignment advising on the building of prefabricated accommodation. If hon. Members have any doubts, I refer them to the debate in the House on 15 March 1944. I shall not delay the House by reading from that debate—

Mr. Joseph Dean: Without being churlish, may I correct the hon. Gentleman? Nye Bevan was not Minister of Health during the war.

Sir Albert Costain: I am talking about 1944. Nye Bevan was responsible for housing. That is a matter of fact. I may have made a mistake about the Ministry. I was under the impression that at that time he was Minister of Health. I had many interviews with Nye Bevan. It is immaterial. We are not discussing who was Minister of Health. We are discussing how the housing problem was tackled. The war was coming to an end. Those who read the debate will see that Lady Megan Lloyd-George pointed out that when war broke out a large number of skilled tradesmen in the building industry were aged over 65. At the end of the war there was a shortage of skills. There had been no training of skilled bricklayers.
There was an enormous shortage of housing, due to the bombing, to meet the needs of returning soldiers from the war. Nye Bevan's one ambition was to build the maximum number of houses as quickly as possible. An exhibition of prefabricated houses, concrete houses and other types were displayed at an exhibition at Northolt, where members of local authorities were able to examine them. Following the exhibition, firms were invited to put forward proposals.
It is interesting that the debate should have been initiated by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Dean). One of the houses mentioned was the Airey house, then partly developed. Edward Airey was a Leeds man. He had established a reputation for building houses after the first world war. The first houses that he built were constructed at Bootle. He produced a concrete block, which was known at the time as the Airey block. One of the specifications of the Airey house was that it could be built by unskilled labour. The idea behind the Airey house was that it could be built in rural areas where there was even less skilled labour available. My hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) was wrong in a number of his assertions. The Airey house was made from precision moulds. The moulds were made of aluminium.
A great deal of aluminium was in stock for the building of aircraft. The Government wanted a use for the aluminium, so that if war broke out again it could immediately be put back into aircraft factories. Prisoners of war were put to work on the construction of houses, under British supervisors. This was the only type of work to which prisoners of war could be assigned. They could not be involved in anything concerned with war preparations. About 20,000 houses were built in rural areas. They were designed primarily to be erected as a temporary measure. A great deal of thought was put into the design of the houses so that, in due time, when the structures were taken down, the foundations and services would be available for new traditional housing. A great deal has been said about the cover of the tube and the amount of chemicals in the concrete.
I shall not bore the House with all of the details. But if anyone doubts that good concrete can be produced he should consider the very Airey factory where the railway sleepers that are used throughout the British Rail system were produced. I admit that we learnt a great deal during the development of the concrete that was used in the Airey sleepers. It is wrong to suggest that the concrete will necessarily deteriorate. Those sleepers are used throughout the world—in Russia, Australia, Canada and

Britain, for example. If anyone travels on British Rail he will see my name on the bottom of the sleeper. When I was chairman of the company we did not put the name "Costain" on them; we used the "CCC" symbol. I know what railway trains do to sleepers and I did not want my name defaced.
When we assess the problem and try to draw conclusions, as I have the benefit of 40 years hindsight I ask the House to bear in mind that there was a shortage of 4 million houses just after the second world war. Moreover, there were no bricklayers, as none had been trained. Every method of building houses was being considered. I agree that there has been a bonanza, that the houses on exhibition at Northholt set the industry full of bright ideas and that several systems did not survive, but it is not fair to say that there is no good system-built housing. The no fines concrete house system which started its life at Northolt was used to build houses of the kind that are still being built today, and they are the only ones that building societies will mortgage. When the factory at Childerdich was being closed, we considered in great detail whether to continue to build for sale. The building societies did a complete survey of the houses and said that they had a limited life and did not want to mortgage them.
People who live in Airey houses should not be too alarmed. One of the reasons for their failure is that some of the posts have dropped and cracked. I erected a building in my garden many years ago which is as good now as it was then. I also spread several fencing posts around the garden which were never intended for that use, and I have taken a great deal of trouble to see how they deteriorate.
I know that the debate is limited for time and I do not want to hog it all. However, we must get the subject into perspective. It is good that the hon. Member for Leeds, West raised the subject in the stillness of the evenng. When my hon. Friend the Minister considers the subject, I urge him to bear in mind the fact that not all prefabricated or system-built houses are bad. Indeed, a good number of them are jolly good.

Mr. John Spellar: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Dean) on persisting with his campaign on the ever-increasing problem of industrialised building. With all due respect to the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Sir A. Costain) how we got into our present circumstances is not especially relevant. We must address ourselves to what we shall do about it and who will pick up the tab. The problem associated with houses that have been purchased is that many of the owners are approaching pension age and often face a massive bill of £10,000 or £12,000.
I should like to raise two special problems that occur in Birmingham, which is the largest housing authority in Europe. It has a substantial quantity of industrialised buildings, mainly because of Birmingham's dramatic development during and after the second world war because of the car industry and the engineering boom.
The first category is those industrialised buildings that look like industrially-built buildings. They are the concrete slab and, especially, walk-up flats in the inner city that are becoming increasingly difficult to let. The problems with them are enormous. There is water penetration from outside, excessive dampness from inside which is often caused by major condensation and fungus


that spreads over the walls. Families are often able to use only one room and many of the bedrooms are not habitable because of dampness and fungus.
Of course, other social factors have recently contributed to the problem. Increasing levels of unemployment have reduced family income so that it is more difficult for people to heat their properties. Dramatic increases in fuel prices since the oil crisis have also contributed to that problem. Nevertheless, those problems have drawn attention to the inherent unsuitability of concrete buildings to the British climate. In brick-built buildings, people are still able to maintain a decent standard of warmth and living conditions, but concrete buildings are increasingly showing that basic weakness. That has a major effect on morale, the standard of the estates and, above all, the health of the families who inhabit them. On two major system-built estates in my constituency, two young children have died recently. Medical opinion has said that their deaths were exacerbated substantially by the conditions in which they lived. Children are dying from bronchial complaints partly because of the conditions in those dwellings.
The other category is the system-built houses that do not look like industrialised buildings from the outside because they are brick clad. They are called Smith houses. There are about 1,500 of them in the city of Birmingham—about 800 of them are in my constituency—of which 230 have been sold to the occupiers. Interest in the problem was demonstrated by the size of a public meeting in my constituency on Friday night which is not normally the best time for a public meeting. People are being surprised by gatherings of 600 or 700 at public meetings during critical by-elections. Perhaps the 400 people who attended my public meeting show the extent of the anxiety about Smith properties.
The problem with those houses has been exacerbated by the use of untreated colliery shale for the fill in the foundations. As the water has reacted with the shale, the resulting pressure has caused cracks in floors, ceilings and walls. Obviously, the basic structure has been affected. One man told me that he can shake hands with his neighbour without having to go outside. I suppose that if one gets next door's post it is convenient to be able to stick it through the wall, but the conditions are clearly unsatisfactory.
Three groups of inhabitants face those problems. First, there are those who have bought the property and are faced with bills of up to £10,000 to make their homes safe. Moreover, they have difficulty if they want to sell their property. Not all Smith houses face the same problems but there is considerable anxiety about their stability and viability so that if some people wish to move to another part of the country, others are reluctant to buy them. As many of the properties were built in the early 1950s, most of the inhabitants are pensioners and have no chance of getting the money to make them sound.
Many tenants are worried as they have put a great deal of money into making the properties into decent homes. They are worried that if major refurbishment must take place, even if it is paid for by the council, they will never be able to find the money to bring them up to standard. Many of them are of pensionable age and want to see out their lives in homes that they have made themselves.
I regret to say that the council is still encouraging some people to buy their property, but it is not giving the

necessary warnings to tenants. The Minister must investigate councils that are still putting those industrially built properties on the market, caveat emptor or not.

Mr. Joseph Dean: This is one of the most important aspects of the debate. If the local authorities had the funds, they would keep those houses and repair them. If the repairs were financed by the Government, the problem would be solved.

Mr. Spellar: We must ask ourselves who will pick up the tab. As several hon. Members have said, the local councils, the council tenants as a group and the owner-occupiers should not bear the burden. Central Government must assume much responsibility. That is not a partisan point, because the evidence from the memoirs of both Harold Macmillan and Richard Crossman is that there was enormous pressure on them, through the system of housing subsidy, and from architects and building companies, to introduce system-built housing. The Government, having created much of that pressure, must pick up the tab and not force the expense onto the groups that I have mentioned.
This is a major economic and social problem. We must recognise that all Governments have made mistakes and we must give some relief to all those concerned.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: When I first went to the Department of the Environment, what impressed me, and I think my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Sir A. Costain), was the sheer size of the officialdom that looked after houses. The Department was festooned with planning divisions, and we were surrounded by building regulations people. In every local authority there were masses of people whose job it was to tell other people how to build houses, how to look after them properly and how to get the systems and the designs right.
The rule seems to be that the more officials and regulations we have, the worse job we do in providing what people need, which is comfortable, inexpensive, warn' and attractive housing. It is deplorable that, since the second world war, we have had more legislation, more officials and more regulations, but that we have produced the worst low-cost housing of almost any industrialised Western country. There is a lesson in that. With other goods, such as motor cars or television sets, where there is competition, private enterprise and less Government regulation, there are no shortages, fewer design faults, fewer things going wrong and no debates in the House about who is responsible.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe said, it would be wrong to condemn prefabs and industrialised housing out of hand, because some of it is very good. In Bury St. Edmunds a group of prefabs that were built in about 1945 or 1946 are well-designed, comfortable and warm. In other parts of Britain, such prefab housing was destroyed because it went out of fashion. However, in my little town, people queue to live in those houses. I do not wish the message to go out from the House that we are turning our backs on the benefits of system-built housing. However, we must ask ourselves where and why we have gone wrong. Although some prefabs are good, others are horribly bad. The worst that I have seen are in Moscow, where the entire city is littered


with the worst looking houses that I have ever seen, all constructed by system builders with the backing of the Soviet Government.
Hon. Members who have spoken in this debate have dodged the question of where the responsibility lies. It lies on central Government to the extent that they used subsidies, circulars and encouragement to cajole local authorities into introducing system-built housing. However, ultimately local authorities decided to introduce this housing, partly because they believed that it was cheaper, partly because they believed that it was quicker—there was a shortage of housing and they wished to put roofs over people's heads—and partly because we were all taken in by a fad. The architects, planners and intelligentsia of the day believed that system building was the answer to all our problems. To a great extent, local authorities must accept that they helped to create the problem about which they now complain. None of us can duck the responsibility.
I can make only a modest contribution to this debate, but I believe that the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Dean) is on the right track. We need a nationwide systematic examination of what has gone wrong. We have the statistical means to do that, the ability to assemble information and to draw conclusions. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Minister is organising such a survey. However, we do not want wholesale new-fangled notions about what is right and what is wrong. We want practical and constructive attention to the details of each case, such as the one described by my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten). The survey may be piecemeal and conceptual, but I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister has taken note of what has been said and will tell us what he proposes to do.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. John Stanley): I do not entirely accept the thesis of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) that the fewer Department of the Environment officials we have, the better housing we shall have. However, if that thesis is correct, without doubt we are now building the best quality houses ever.
The House will agree that the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Dean) has introduced a matter that is of wide and increasing concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is certainly important to the Government and to me. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that defective housing and how best to deal with it, both technically and financially, is very much in our minds. I also agree that the problems are growing. The hon. Gentleman has been sedulous and persistent in articulating his constituents' anxiety, as have other hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) has been especially persistent in vigorously and forcefully representing the interests of the small groups of his constituents who have purchased Unity houses.
We all appreciated the expert and technical contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Sir A. Costain). He has a reservoir of technical knowledge about the earlier types of system-built houses in the immediate post-war period which is probably greater than that of the rest of the House put together.
One of the sobering features of this debate, and of the wider debate taking place in the housing and design world, is the almost unanimous agreement now that the perceived wisdom about houses which were thought to be desirable and attractive, and in which people wanted to live only 15 or 20 years ago, has been thrown overboard and shown to be profoundly faulty. Of all the range of problems that inevitably come on to a Minister's desk there is not one problem that has exercised me more in terms of technical difficulty than the growing awareness of the extent and severity of the problem that we face of defective housing, including defective housing only recently built.
Some of the most distressing visits that I have made are when I have been, for example in the north-west, to see multi-million-pound blocks of system-built houses, built at prodigious ratepayers' and taxpayers' expense in the past 15 years. In some cases, they are vandalised, difficult to let, quarter-empty, half-empty, or even wholly empty. Sometimes they have to be demolished entirely. When one is concerned to get the best possible use of the available housing money, it is distressing and disturbing to see the wastage of funds involved in demolishing those enormously expensive blocks of houses that have been built only recently.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the reasons why many of his supporters so strongly back his efforts on improvement grants is because there at least money is being spent on things that one knows works well rather than upon these grandiose schemes that do not?

Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend is right. It is an interesting reflection, particularly for hon. Members who represent inner city seats—such as the hon. Members for Leeds, West and for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Spellar)—that if we had put perhaps a fraction of the money that we spent in the 1960s and early 1970s on these massive clearance industrialised building schemes into rehabilitation, upgrading and modernising some of the stock which we are now so successfully doing with enveloping schemes in places such as Birmingham, we should have had more satisfactory living conditions for many more people.
I have not merely been exercised about the defect problem. I have tried to do what I can to see that when my successors in 20 or 30 years come to look at the building carried out under this Administration they will not find that we have built in a great deal more additional defects. I was struck by the fact that until this Government there had not been any systematic procedure within the Department of the Environment or any of its predecessor Departments to assemble and bring together information about defects from local authorities, assessing that in a co-ordinated structure and getting back to the local authorities as fast as possible this information about defects. That was a serious deficiency, and that is why we have set up the defects prevention unit in the Building Research Establishment. It may sound as if one is closing the stable door after heaven knows how many hordes of horses have got out, but it is better to try to do something now to see that we are not repeating the same problems.
One of the factors that has been brought home to me is that, long after certain defects and the problems of certain systems had become identified many local authorities continued to build the same types of houses. There has been a serious lack of information about defects


available among local authorities. We have tried to do something significant by setting up the defects prevention unit. It is now producing defect action sheets, copies of which we are putting in the Library. There is now a system for not merely monitoring incidence of defects, but also a steady programme of highlighting to local authorities the aspects that can result in defects.
The second conclusion that I draw about the past is that it is imperative that those who have responsibility for designing houses, whether in social living terms or technical terms, and whether or not central Government are giving any advice or guidance, keep in touch with those who live in the properties. That is one reason why I urge local authorities to ensure, as a matter of course, that in each and every building scheme they have a survey. It is worth while two years after the building has been completed to have a detailed survey of the tenants to find out the things that are right or wrong so that we can all learn by experience.
My third point about the past relates to what the hon. Member for Leeds, West said about responsibility. That matter will be better decided by the historians writing the social history of the latter half of this century, but I could not accept the premise behind his remarks, which was that responsibility wholly lies with central Government and the private building industry. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds that it is not possible to say that local authorities had no responsibility in this matter. Some systems were wholly created by local authorities, as the hon. Member for Leeds, West will know. The Yorkshire development group, which brought together four major urban authorities, designed a system. It chose to go it alone, independent of central Government.
Even for those local authorities that built to systems that may have been through the National Building Agency approval system, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds rightly pointed out, and as I remind the hon. Member for Leeds, West, each and every system through the 1960s and 1970s, and each housing scheme, whether industrially built, system-built or conventionally built, carried with it a certificate signed by the local authority certifying various things about the scheme. I have brought with me, because I thought it might be of interest to hon. Members, the certificate given by Leeds council in October 1966 on a form TC1. It is about the Hunslet scheme, for Leek street, where 440 dwellings of the Yorkshire development group mark 1 type were to be developed. The certificate is signed by the city architect, who says:
I hereby certify that the dwellings to be built…
(d) Are not inconsistent in any respects with the provisions of the building byelaws in force in the district and the materials and form of construction are of a type appropriate to a building which is to have a life of 60 years or more.
Every local authority under the subsidy system certified in that way.

Mr. Joseph Dean: Is it not a fact that almost every scheme during the period about which I am talking had to carry a certificate of approval from the National Building Agency? It is no good saying with hindsight that it was a mistake to approve the sanctions, because the sanctions were granted and there is ministerial responsibility.

Mr. Stanley: I do not deny that the National Building Agency was performing its function. The hon. Gentleman suggested that the whole issue was one of central

Government's responsibility. He made no mention of the responsibility of local authorities. Every local authority with schemes attracting housing subsidies certified, through a senior technical officer, that the building, house or scheme would have a life of 60 years or more.
We accept that the problems are increasing. For specific systems we have introduced a scheme of financial assistance for the private owners of Airey houses. That scheme came into effect on 14 February.
In my statement to the House on 8 February, I said that the Government were asking the local authorities for information about the numbers and tenures of prefabricated reinforced concrete houses in their areas which were built before the end of the 1950s. The Building Research Establishment is now carrying out inspections and technical assessments in co-operation with local authorities. Initially, they are concentrating on six types of prefabricated reinforced concrete houses: Boot, Cornish Unit, Wates, Unity—to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) referred—Orlit and Woolaway. The results of that research will be published as soon as possible, and I expect that to happen in the next few months.
On the question of a possible extension of the scheme of financial assistance that we have brought in for private owners of Airey houses, I am afraid that I cannot add today to what I said in the House on 8 February. Clearly, we have to complete the technical work first and assess the implications, but I assure the House and those hon. Members who have spoken, including the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Spellar) who has a particular problem, that we are very much aware of how worried some private owners are about their property. We are trying to get the technical work done as quickly as possible.
The hon. Member for Northfield referred to the Smith houses in Birmingham. His speech illustrated a point that I have to make to him and to my hon. Friend the Member for Bath. We are now dealing with a problem that is much wider than the problem that originally faced us. Originally, it was a matter of the Airey houses, whose defects came to light following a fortuitous fire in Barnsley. As a result of investigations into other houses of the same vintage, also built under various industrialised systems, we now find that the problem may be much wider. We are now having to deal with a multiplicity of systems. The particular system to which the hon. Member for Northfield referred is not even a prefabricated reinforced concrete house. Even though that system is not one of the six on which it is concentrating, I have asked the Building Research Establishment, following my statement on 8 February, to examine the technical evidence that Birmingham has provided. As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, I have arranged a meeting next week for him and other Members in the area—my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) and for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Eyre). I hope that we shall have further discussions about the Smith houses on that occasion.
On later industrialised building systems, the BRE does not have to carry out a full-scale systematic investigation, because in most cases that has already been done by the local authorities. It will be for the authorities to decide in each case whether the right solution is to be a major improvement or demolition—or, if the whole block is vacant, there may even be scope for sale.
In considering the solutions, it is advisable to consider the possibilities of changing management methods. The House will be aware of the Department's priority estates project, which has shown the remarkable results that can be achieved by increasing the attractiveness of estates and the attractiveness of lettability to the new management forms that are demonstrated by that project.
We have taken a number of steps to help with the financial problems of authorities with significant defective houses. We brought in the Airey house scheme, as I mentioned. We have also changed the subsidy rules so that they now operate more favourably for authorities that have these problems. We have abolished the 30-year rule. We have brought capitalised repairs within the scope of subsidy. That means that the costs of improvements to dwellings built within the past 30 years now count in the subsidy calculation. So, too, do the costs of repair works that are financed by borrowing. Previously, both categories were excluded from any subsidy support.
I accept, of course, that many authorities are now coming out of subsidy, but a significant proportion of authorities with defective housing problems appear to be among those that are still likely to be entitled to subsidy—certainly next year, and for some years beyond. For those authorities, the measures that we have already taken represent an important financial help.
On the capital side, I have already made it clear that we shall take account of the costs of dealing with these problems in making the HIP allocations. This year, We gave authorities the opportunity to bid for additional capital allocations. The hon. Member for Leeds, West spoke about the £9 million additional allocation to Leeds. I take his point that an authority will have to bear the debt charges on that amount if it is out of subsidy, but many authorities—over 200—have thought it worth their while to take additional allocations, totalling more than £170 million this year, which suggests that they are of some help.
Authorities that are facing high additional costs because of problems with defects in system-built houses should obviously also do all they can to maximise their capital receipts by pressing on with council sales, land sales, and transfers of mortgages to the building societies. In addition, on the capital side, as I told the House yesterday, I shall be discussing with the local authority associations

the treatment of capital expenditure needs for defective housing in the context of our discussions with them on the HIP allocation methodology for 1984–85.
On the current expenditure implications of capital spending to remedy defects, it is not true, as the hon. Member for Leeds, West suggested, that the expenditure need fall exclusively on council tenants. Councils have a variety of choices open to them. They can, of course, finance the work by borrowing and increasing rents if they wish, to cover the loan charges on the sums borrowed. That is just one option; there are others. They can use capital receipts. They can meet the financing costs of the borrowing by a higher rate fund contribution. So local authorities have a real choice in the ways they distribute the burden between their council tenants and the general body of ratepayers. Each authority must make a judgment. I note that in Leeds the average rent at present is slightly below the regional average rent, and quite a long way below the national average rent.
In conclusion, I am sure that the House will be grateful to the hon. Member for Leeds, West for initiating this debate. I can assure him and other hon. Members who have spoken that we are taking the problem seriously. We have intensive technical work in hand which we are anxious to complete rapidly. On later occasions we shall want to keep the House fully informed about our progress with the technical work. I assure the House that we shall be discussing the financial issues for authorities with substantial defect problems with the local authority associations. We shall inform the House as soon as we can about the outcome of the technical studies that we have in hand.

Mr. Joseph Dean: May I thank the Minister for his full reply to the important and detailed debate? He is unfortunate in that he is the first Minister who has had to deal with this problem. No doubt his successors, whether from his party or from mine, for a long time to come will be grappling with the problem. The Minister referred—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. The hon. Gentleman must not make another speech. He may only intervene.

Mr. Dean: In thanking the Minister, I must point out that this is the first special debate on this subject. Because of the immensity of the problem I hope that it will be the forerunner of many.

Civil Defence

Mr. Neil Thorne: I am delighted that the important subject of civil defence is being debated so early in the evening. I am particularly pleased to open the debate, as I have recently become chairman of the National Council for Civil Defence.
Until recent times there was a general belief that civil defence was above dispute. In fact, it was considered as necessary as the essential elements that make it effective—the fire service, the St. John ambulance service, the Women's Royal Voluntary Service and the police. Quite wrongly, either through ignorance or mischievously, the matter has now been linked to the cruise and Trident issues.
Our allies in Europe pay much greater attention to the need for civil defence. The neutral countries of Switzerland and Sweden have extremely sophisticated civil defence systems. One might be forgiven for expecting that those who believe in complete disarmament, unilateral or otherwise, would be in the forefront of the demand for us to emulate the neutral countries and protect children and old people. Their only counter argument seems to be that the preparation of civil defence is an impossible task against such fearful odds and that they would rather put their heads in the sand and accept death.
Those who support nuclear disarmament are convinced that the only type of war that we can ever expect is an all-out nuclear holocaust. They completely ignore the fact that there have been dozens of wars since the second world war and that none of them has been nuclear. Even the population of the Falklands would have been safer if they had been in possession of the necessary skills available to every sensible civil defence volunteer.
We desperately need new civil defence legislation. The Civil Defence Act 1948, on which we rely with amendment by regulation, is out of date and should be redrafted to include specific provision for peacetime emergencies. There have been numerous occasions since 1945 when we have had occasion to be thankful to emergency planning teams. The floods at Canvey island, the floods in the west country and the Flixborough disaster are three of the more easily remembered. Heaven forbid that we should ever have an aircraft crash on a densely built-up area. If we did, and if no planning team existed in that area, those in political control could expect to be lynched if they had not made adequate provision for the relief of the families suffering the worse effects.
I am pleased that The Times has chosen today to publish a letter written by Lord Renton as president of the National Council for Civil Defence, supported by Lord Mottistone, my vice-chairman, and by hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House, including the Labour Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Ford), the Liberal Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) and myself. The letter says:
Hostile attacks for which we should be prepared, include:

1. A conventional attack in which no nuclear bombs are dropped.
2. One or two nuclear bombs dropped on us as 'blackmail' to bring a conventional war to an end.
3. An 'all-out' nuclear holocaust, or even 'germ' or chemical warfare on a large scale."

It continues:

Some people wrongly assume that this third possibility is the only one which is conceivable, arguing that there would be no survivors and that all civil defence preparations are a waste of time even to protect people on the periphery and in remote areas from fall-out. Their argument is then falsely extended to the denial of civil defence in all circumstances.
In the past 30 years all the great powers have been involved in conventional wars and no nuclear weapons have been used. The greatest danger is therefore that of a conventional attack, especially after the recent massive increase in Soviet conventional arms. Even the possibility of one or two bombs being dropped is also much more realistic than an 'all-out' attack.
If conventional weapons only are used, or if there is only a limited use of nuclear missiles, adequate civil defence preparations made well in advance could save millions of lives.
Although beyond the present statutory scope of civil defence, there is also the need to protect people from the effects of peacetime nuclear disasters and of fall-out drifting over this country from a nuclear attack elsewhere.
The same preparations are then required as for dealing with a limited nuclear attack here.
Those who declare 'nuclear-free zones' and refuse to have anything to do with civil defence are either victims of ignorance or prejudice, or are content to give an enemy a tremendous advantage. Failure to co-operate in providing civil defence is irresponsible and callous.
Unfortunately, that sums up the attitude of a growing sector of the population. Therefore, the Government and the House have a major role to play in ensuring that the message is taken aboard by people throughout the country. I am sorry that Opposition Members are absent tonight, because I believe that they have a contribution to make, even if it is only to criticise what is proposed in this debate. It is vital that we retain all-party support if we are to provide the best possible service to the community in this essential service.
One of the most vital and controversial questions about civil defence is protecting the civil population from nuclear attack by means of deep shelters. Other nations, such as Sweden and Switzerland, which I have already mentioned, do that successfully, so why can we not do so? The answer must be that the cost of providing that on a full scale would be economically impracticable with our existing defence commitments, which are not shared to the same extent by the countries that I have mentioned as they are outside NATO. Yet there is a strong case for examining the feasibility of such a project on a long-term basis. That could start with provision for the construction of underground communal shelters in new buildings. It would probably be necessary to give 100 per cent. industrial building allowances for that work and to allow for full rate relief on approved schemes, which could he used in peacetime for storage or some other purpose without incurring any rate penalty.
Much public criticism of civil defence arose over the issue by the Home Office of a publication called "Protect and Survive". That booklet was subject to considerable misrepresentation and derision and clearly was not an appropriate document for peacetime information. It was originally intended to be issued to supplement a massive media campaign to give people advice in a crisis. A new publication is now proposed which will examine the whole spectrum of the threat, our civil defence arrangements in peacetime, how they will be implemented in war and better advice on self-protection, including more up-to-date advice on food, water and medical aid. I sincerely hope that that document will be available to the public before the end of the year. I also hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State will take the opportunity to consult the National Council for Civil Defence and other


interested organisations about its content before it is published, because grass-roots criticism could have saved the embarrassment that arose out of the issue of the "Protect and Survive" pamphlet.
I am afraid that even among the authorities that believe in civil defence there is at present a reluctance to incur expenditure, because although the Government pay 75 per cent. of the normal establishment costs, the remaining 25 per cent. is chargeable to the rates and is still likely to incur grant aid penalties, except for minor items such as police training and maintenance of air raid warning systems, which are 100 per cent. reimbursed.
Therefore, the Home Office should consider giving 100 per cent. grant aid by making appropriate rate support grant reductions, if necessary, to provide for uniformity throughout the country in protecting citizens. It is far too important an issue to leave to local political gerrymandering. The Home Office at the moment has a department, F6, which deals with civil defence matters to the best of its ability within its manpower establishment. If the Home Office were to take a much greater part in civil defence, this department could be enlarged. I should very much like to see a more direct relationship between the officials of this department and those who are professionally serving in civil defence.
I should therefore like local authorities to be empowered to act as agents for the Home Office in civil defence, in the same way as the Department of Transport authorises local authorities to act as its agents in building roads. The necessary input from the local authorities could then be provided for and the Home Office would have overall control and ensure that things were run properly.
There is a great need for research into all aspects of civil defence. We spend enormous sums of money on military research and development, but have not done nearly enough in civil defence. This will become much more important if the recently announced experiments are successful in producing some kind of laser ray which will be able to control an atomic explosion. Those who at the moment are putting their heads in the sand will then have no possible excuse for not playing a full part in civil defence.
Civil defence has a positive contribution to make in saving lives, and if it is possible to devise an antidote that is sufficient to neutralise the majority of these horrible weapons, civil defence will have an even more important role. It will then be much easier for all citizens to appreciate how much good can be done.
One of the reasons why I feel that the Civil Defence Act 1948 should be revised is its emphasis on wartime effort. The major part of the contribution made by civil defence since 1945 has been in coping with the disasters that take place in peacetime and there is much to be done in enlarging and supporting this role.
One of the most important needs of civil defence at the moment is to have the new regulations announced. I hope that when he replies to the debate my hon. and learned Friend will give us some encouraging information. He will recall that he told the House that he expected to be able to make a statement on this matter in the very near future. I hope that he will be able to give us an undertaking that he can fulfil his promise before Easter so that the people who are working professionally in civil defence can get on

with the job that they are supposed to do, confident in the knowledge that they are fully supported in their task by the Government.
It is not only the major local authorities which have a major part to play. There is also much to be done in the community. It is vital that we get this message across. I ask my hon. and learned Friend to consider bringing out some kind of publication that can be issued to the population as a whole, specifying the sort of thing that is required and what civil defence sets out to do. I realise that this would be much more attractive if he were able to couple with it the civil emergency role, but even so there is a lot that could be explained in a pamphlet. I do not envisage a very large publication but something of the size of this leaflet that I have here. Something produced efficiently and expertly and, I hope, in the near future, would be extremely welcome and would make a major contribution.
A good deal of personal effort is being made in this area. I have today received a parish emergency plan. I do not know whether many of my hon. Friends or hon. Members generally have seen such a document. It shows how conscientiously members of the community are taking the need to make provision for emergencies. It deals with the problems that might be expected within a parish. For example, it shows precisely the manpower available, it gives guidelines to the parish council and it provides notes on the use of a modern emergency plan. It goes into considerable detail about what steps need to be taken, who should be involved, their roles and how they can fulfil them, where to set up rest centres, reception centres, medical stores, first-aid posts, sick bays, fuel stores, food stores, building material stores and helicopter landing areas. Those are important issues.
The Home Office could do much to encourage people who, at their own expense, are producing such documents. The document gives instructions for the chairman and various members of the council. It sets out clearly what needs to be done, how records and medical notes should be kept and the responsibilities and powers within existing legislation. We must encourage communities in that work. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will do everything possible to further their efforts.
Certain statements have been made recently by learned bodies about the impossibility of coping with a nuclear holocaust. Many of the remarks have been hints rather than established facts. The statements need to be considered with great care and the criticisms of our existing system must be examined carefully. Many of the statistics bandied about are quite outside the understanding of the private individual. The Home Office has a major task in distinguishing fact from fiction.
The boundary between science fiction and fact in nuclear matters is very fine. The Home Office must be the arbiter of what is fact and what is fiction. When learned bodies make statements, the Home Office must be quite clear about their accuracy. That would be a significant contribution and would fend off any irresponsible interpretation. There are people who, for whatever motive, appear to delight in making a meal of the issue, without any real justification. It is vital that the Home Office takes up the reins of the information cycle properly to equip the population to consider the issues in a balanced way.
There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that we have an irrefutable case for the expansion of the civil defence


system and the mobilisation, effective instruction, training and exercising of the volunteers to show them how they fit into the plan.
In the last regulation that came out, which was in 1981, I believe it was thought that as little as 48 hours' notice could be expected of some emergency. I assume that we were talking there in terms of conventional war, but if we had a civil emergency it could be even less than that. With the flood barrier safely in place we are less likely to have a flooding problem in the London area, but there are other possible emergencies. I mentioned earlier the possibility of an aircraft crashing in a populated area, where there would be no previous notification at all. Immediately the emergency services would be required to swing into action.
It is essential, therefore, that we get the message over to the population generally that there is a real necessity to plan for the future. It is necessary to consider seriously the thousand and one occasions when an emergency planning team is likely to be called upon other than in a nuclear attack and to convince people that they have to practise and prepare for such an eventuality.
I must ask my hon. and learned Friend the Minister to look carefully into whether it is necessary to finance a publicity campaign with this in mind. As in all such matters, there is undoubtedly a hearts and minds operation, and unless my hon. and learned Friend can inform people properly we are likely to lose this argument by default. There is only so much that the private individual can do and can be expected to pay for out of his own pocket. As I have already explained, there are people who have already spent quite a substantial sum of money on producing things such as the parish emergency plan. This is being done up and down the country and caters for perhaps tens of thousands of people, but completely leaves out those in the urban and built-up areas. We must get the message through to them also and make sure that they are involved in this process. I fear that the only way that we can do that is with the help of the Home Office, spending money on informing people and bringing out a proper publicity campaign to show precisely what can be done and what can be achieved if we set about it properly.
I know that if we were to suffer a major setback of whatever sort before we were properly prepared the criticism would fall upon politicians at every level in society and particularly on those in the House. That criticism would be enormous and, instead of having a debate at which a relatively small number of hon. Members were present, the House would be packed—as it was during the Falklands campaign—to hear what the Government were going to do and to demand immediate action.
I feel that we have to deal with this matter most seriously and most carefully and I hope, therefore, that my hon. and learned Friend will do everything he possibly can to pursue this issue satisfactorily, for the protection of the community and to give the country the protection that it deserves.

Mr. John Wheeler: It is an enormous pleasure for me to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) in what has proved to be a most useful and important debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the skilled and persuasive way in which he deployed the argument for generating within the United Kingdom a

comprehensive civil defence plan for the benefit of the people of this country. It is most fortunate that he should have succeeded to the chairmanship of the National Council for Civil Defence. The House will recognise that in my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South that body will have a most capable and formidable leader who, I am sure, will devote his talents and energy to the cause of civil defence.
My hon. Friend rightly points to the role of the Home Office in England and Wales and its sister Departments in Northern Ireland and Scotland. The Home Office must be involved in explaining and encouraging the purpose and worth of a civil defence strategy. That cannot be clone by private individuals or associations, however determined. It requires the stamp and energy of Goverment if it is to be successful.
My hon. Friend made a valuable point about research there is little doubt that research into civil defence measures and tactics is vital. When my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State replies I shall be interested to know whether the excellent resources of the Home Office research unit can be deployed or whether the Home Office will be able to commission research from outside the Department. I am sure that the House would like to know the plans and the timetable for the research programme and when we are likely to learn of its results.
My hon. Friend gave an excellent description of the parish plan. If any illustration were required of what people can do for themselves in the neighbourhood community, the parish plan is one. It surely gives the lie to those who say that civil defence is worthless. I assume that the proposals of the parish plan, designed for a rural area, would be equally applicable to urban mews, streets and mansion blocks in the great cities of the United Kingdom. I can see no reason why that plan should not be modified and adapted to the urban environment. I am sure that the House extends its goodwill to those who devised that plan with such energy on behalf of their community.
The prospect of a nuclear attack is horrific. The policy of deterrence adopted by Britain and its NATO allies has to date proved supremely successful in preventing such an attack. Western Europe has been fortunate to avoid war since 1945, in stark contrast to the misfortunes in so many other parts of the world. Nevertheless, the sheer horror of such a nuclear attack is insufficient reason for ignoring it. Any responsible Government must take realistic steps to mitigate its effect on the population. Indeed, unless a Government take such steps it can be argued that the credibility of their deterrence policy would be greatly reduced.
I am worried that local authorities might not he taking sufficiently seriously their responsibilities to protect the population in the event of a nuclear attack. At present the Government are making some £45 million per annum available to local authorities to fund 75 per cent of their local defence expenditure. Part of the problem is that several Labour local authorities are refusing to co-operate. I am sorry that the Labour party and the Liberal and Social Democratic parties are not represented here. It is remarkable that when we are talking about the survival of the British people only one party should trouble itself to take part in the debate.
The Labour authorities prefer to put their heads in the sand, thinking that if they refuse to contemplate a threat it will just go away. Recently, Mr. Kenneth Livingstone,


the leader of the Greater London council, declared London a nuclear-free zone. Presumably, those of us who live in Greater London can now sleep soundly.
Unfortunately, the fact that a nuclear attack is horrific does not mean that it is impossible, and if it is possible, the House must consider steps to mitigate its effects.
In the first instance, there would be virtually no civil defence against the initial blast, heat and radiation. However, that is likely to be confined to a comparatively small area. The threat to the millions of people not in the immediate vicinity of the explosion comes from the radioactive fallout. That is the tiny particles of ash and dust that can be blown by the wind hundreds of miles from the explosion, and whose radioactivity makes them lethal. It is against this fallout that there is scope for protection at a comparatively low cost for millions of people through the construction of shelters. By avoiding contact with the dust for about a month, its radioactive destructiveness is greatly reduced and millions of lives can be saved.
Other Governments have taken seriously the potential savings to life offered by such shelters. Nine out of 10 people in Switzerland, for example, already have access to their own purpose-built shelters, and fallout shelters are an integral feature of all Swiss housing designs by law. I wonder whether such a proposal is not beyond the bounds of possibility in this country.
The Swedish Government have taken similar measures. Three out of four Swedes are already sheltered, and by the end of the century the whole of Sweden's population of about 8 million will have protection facilities. Furthermore, I understand that substantial resources are being allocated to civil defence both in the Soviet Union and in China.
In the light of that evidence, I urge the Government to take seriously the enormous potential of civil defence, and, especially, the will of the British people to participate in a civil defence programme if they can see its purpose and if they are guided by the Government as to why they should participate in it.
Early steps must be taken to examine the role of the local authorities in the provision of these measures. It is not good enough to say, "We are declaring a particular city a nuclear-free zone," and then to forget about the subject. Nor is it good enough to say, "But it will cost money and the ratepayers or the taxpayers will not want to find it." That is not the case. The Government must take a real initiative to examine what can be done to develop real civil defence programmes throughout the country.
The provision of well-designed literature by the Home Office, explaining the issue and what can be done, would be invaluable. The Home Department has already shown itself more than capable of producing excellent literature in connection with its crime prevention campaigns. I am sure that a similar range of literature could be designed to promote the concept of civil defence. At present, those who merely seek one-sided disarmament or who feel that there is no point in trying to provide any civil defence are getting the best of the argument. Now is the time to promote a real campaign. In raising this subject for debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South has rendered us a great service. I trust that he will continue in the course of his chairmanship to promote these issues with the

support of the Government. I am sure that he will receive a great response from the British people, who feel just as deeply about these matters as we do.

Mr. John Loveridge: I too congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) on his initiative in giving us the opportunity to debate a subject that is of such contingent importance for the lives of millions of our fellow citizens. He is chairman of the National Council for Civil Defence and I am proud to be associated with him as a vice-president.
My hon. Friend cited a letter in today's edition of The Times that had been written by Lord Renton and others. People are indeed becoming more concerned about their safety. They feel that there is a possible threat of war or accident—not necessarily nuclear—from which they would like themselves, their wives and, of course, their children to be protected. In addition, they are worried by the great increase in nuclear weaponry and in the means of chemical, biological or germ warfare which may lead to the possibility—I put it no higher than that—of an accident that endangers life. If it endangers life, it will probably do so on a substantial scale.
Therefore, we need some form of service to provide protection in emergencies. Human decency alone should be a sufficient motive to make the Government feel that they must give the closest attention to this issue. The letter that my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South quoted contained a phrase that spoke of the dangers
of fall-out drifting over the country following a nuclear attack elsewhere.
People feel that there may be some danger. I defy anyone to say that that feeling is not real.
The Central Office of Information published a pamphlet for the Home Office entitled "Civil Defence—why we need it." It contains a message from the Home Secretary. It asks:
How would people know what to do if war threatened?
The answer is given:
A wartime broadcast service would be brought into operation to transmit public information virtually non-stop. The advice would be—`tune in and listen.'
Another publication states:
events may overtake this plan. For example, a single nuclear explosion detonated high over Western Europe would create an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) that would destroy the power and electronic communication systems throughout an area that would encompass the United Kingdom. This means no electricity, no telephones and no radio or television. Before any bombs exploded on this country we might therefore not even be able to hear our Government's advice.
So much for the Home Office pamphlet. However, that pamphlet also asks:
But surely there is no real protection against a nuclear attack".
With all the official authority of the Home Office, the pamphlet replies:
Millions of lives could be saved".
Later, the pamphlet states:
The risk of war is at present considered so slight that the enormous expense of providing shelters to every family in the land could not be justified".
The pamphlet states that, as it is, about £45 million a year is due to be spent in 1983–84. That is less than £1 a year per head of the population. That is under £1 a year for the insurance of a child's life for civil defence. Is that enough?
We should examine the costs. It has been said time and again that we cannot afford this insurance to safeguard our


families. However, this country believes in looking after people. After all, in 1983–84 the social service payments are—according to Cmnd. 8789—likely to amount to £34,394 million. Health Service patient payments are likely to amount to another £14,608 million. Thus, more than £49,000 million will be spent just on those two services alone in one year. That would amount over 10 years to more than £490,000 million or nearly £500 billion at present prices. That money would, very properly, be spent on safeguarding our people against illness, unemployment and old age.
What of our people's security against nuclear or chemical threats or germs and disease from accident or warfare? Should not the Government study that again? Admiral Lord Lewin warned us some time ago that it was possible to envisage war at sea in which land forces were not involved. It is possible, and it might well lead to vast nuclear fallout being carried from the oceans across our country and people. It might be a war in which the United Kingdom was not involved. Our people deserve adequate insurance against that risk, however remote.
During the 10 years about which I have spoken, £500 billion will be spent on health and social services. If we spent 2 per cent. only of that sum, itself only a part of Government spending, on defence against these serious accidents which might kill millions and maim millions of others it would be a cheap insurance. I appreciate that even 2 per cent. of that sum is a great deal of money. The figures cannot be more than estimates but it has been said that such expenditure might well increase the survival rate in these islands from a low threshold of nuclear attack, with one, two or more bombs, from 15 million to 30 million survivors. Those lives are worth an insurance premium. It is said that we cannot afford such safety insurance. How can Switzerland and Sweden afford it? My hon. Friend the Member for Paddington (Mr. Wheeler) said that three quarters of the Swedish people are covered already. As we know, new homes in Switzerland must be provided with adequate shelters.
America and Russia are both looking not just to nuclear deterrence but to defence with laser weapons also against incoming missiles. We are to have Trident missiles for the defence of the United Kingdom and to deter any threat of attack against our kingdom, but will people across the world believe in them if we do not provide the most elementary and minimal safeguards for our population and cities which are unprepared and undefended?
This matter is of diplomatic importance too. We should surely try to help the "doves" in Moscow; there are doves in Moscow. Our weakness in having the Trident missile without some security for the civil population can only egg on the hawks in Moscow to take risks that otherwise their colleagues might not allow them to take. These risks will probably be at their greatest in the mid-1980s when it seems likely that Russia's military strength will be at a peak compared to that of the Western allies. It is likely to fall proportionately thereafter. We must encourage the doves and not the hawks.
We have plans to send the territorial army abroad in time of war. Our homes would be left an easy prey, open to invasion or other attack. The Government have a duty to examine the volunteer and reserve system. It is cheap. About 2 per cent. only of our defence budget goes on the reserves. They could be expanded vastly at minimal cost. Our people can be trusted to have weapons at home to have the necessary equipment for self-defence, just as the Swiss

are trusted. Switzerland is a key example for us to consider. New houses are required by law to have shelters built into them. Two months' food and water is to be stored at home. Three years' food is to be stacked away in tunnels under the mountains. Perhaps just as important, seeds are kept safe for replanting the earth which might be damaged by radioactivity and which might not be capable of being replanted for as long as three years. I hope that the Government can give hon. Members some assurance that we have seeds kept safe that could re-seed our fields should it ever be necessary.
It is not only in our towns and our fields that we need civil security and safety. Many of our supplies arrive by sea. According to The Daily Telegraph of 17 March, one third of our merchant ships that were to reinforce allied forces in Germany in the recent contingency, month-long exercise named Wintex were deemed to be sunk within 24 hours of the exercise beginning. It is allegedly not thought practical to have a convoy system in present conditions. If that exercise bears any relation to possible reality, the Government have a clear obligation to ensure that large numbers of our merchant ships are equipped with lightweight Sea Wolf or similar self-defence systems. These are now available to be purchased in packaged systems and could be placed quickly and easily on many merchant ships and the crews, under the control of the captain as part of the Royal Navy Reserve trained in their use.
That would be civil defence at sea for the merchant crews and civil defence for our people at home who need what the ships can carry. If there is objection to putting such equipment on ships in times of peace, the ships could at least be equipped to carry them and have the packaged systems fitted quickly should it become necessary.
It is not enough to have local government officials at home in charge of great emergencies that might cause massive loss of life, whether this arises from a hostile act or by accident from radiation or from chemical or other cause. There is a strong need for a special protective service to be appointed under the Government, not a service just for civil defence but a service for emergencies of every kind in a world that is increasingly dangerous. There are not only the dangers of man's deliberate actions or accidents of the kind that we have discussed. We have seen the death of the elms and the cypress trees. We have seen damage to fir trees across Europe. Types of wheat have been invented in the green revolution that have doubled output per acre.
Every invention of new crops brings in its train the likelihood of disease. We cannot always rely, through generations, on the researchers providing ever new crops to replace the old as they become susceptible to disease. I do not believe that it is likely. I believe that the researchers are well ahead. It is, however, possible to envisage damage to wheat or damage to earthworms, either of which would be disastrous emergencies. These thoughts should not be regarded as far-fetched. We have seen too much of it on a limited scale not to think that it is possible on a larger scale. I should like to see not merely a civil defence organisation, but an organisation that we might call the service for emergency help. That is what it would be. It would be better if, in due course, it became the royal service for emergency help to encourage volunteers to join.
The Government should consider the following measures. First, they should educate the public in


measures for self- and mutual support in emergencies. Secondly, they should form a voluntary and a civil defence corps along the lines of the service for emergency help that I outlined. Thirdly, they should provide a new and completely professional command structure. Fourthly, they should train medical services for emergencies. Fifthly, they should plan to meet the dangers of disease from chemicals, gas and radioactive fallout. Sixthly, they should ensure the safety of our water supplies and our reserves of untainted water. Seventhly, they should safeguard strategic food and materials, stores and seeds. Eighthly, they should design protective equipment and shelters and make the necessary changes in building regulations. Ninthly, they should secure the protection of our ports. Tenthly, they should secure the protection of our transport by sea, air and land.
If such steps were taken, the United Kingdom could approach and encourage the United States and Russia to get together to form a world emergency help service. Threats are worldwide. We should consider the famine in Ethiopia today. It is a pity not to encourage the two superpowers to work with Britain and our allies. Russian children are also children and deserve safety and protection.
How much easier it is likely to be for us all if we work together to meet future accidents and the threat of other nations that, for religious or other motives, might acquire atomic weapons and threaten humanity with them. How much easier it would be to control and safeguard the world against that if the great powers worked together. If each country took proper steps to protect its own civilian population, diplomatic measures should prove easier to arrange.
There is just one point that I should like to leave in the Government's mind. Just £1 or £2 per head a year for civil defence is not enough insurance to save a child's life in Britain. The Government have the duty at least to institute a wide-ranging and fully public inquiry in which the peoples of our islands can participate to see whether they want to be protected and are prepared to spend the money. After all, the Government are spending their money. It is not sufficient to provide deep shelters for officialdom and the military. The people who need protection are the people and the children of these islands.
It is possible to provide millions of people with a measure of safety. The necessary funds are within our reach. That is to say nothing of the immense increase in demand for jobs that would arise from such a programme. I pray that the Government will consider emergency safeguards with a fresh eye, thinking not what they may save but whom they may save.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Patrick Mayhew): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) on his initiative in choosing this subject for debate and on his recent appointment as chairman of the National Council for Civil Defence. Since his appointment, I have learnt of the great value that he and his council can be, and will be, to the Home Office, especially to the Minister with responsibility for civil defence. For as long as I hold that post I shall look forward with great pleasure to working with him, because I know that it will redound to the great advantage of this country.
It is also pleasant to acknowledge that my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Mr. Loveridge) is the vice-president of that organisation.
It is extremely important to have frequent opportunities to discuss civil defence. The subject should attract the support of all hon. Members, whatever their views about world alignments or nuclear deterrence. Everyone should acknowledge that, since we cannot guarantee that there will never in any circumstances be an attack upon this country, it is our humanitarian duty to provide appropriate protection for our people. All the Government's efforts in defence and in foreign policy are bent to avoiding any risk of attack and to doing our best to avoid a breach of the peace in western Europe that has been maintained for the past 38 years. But none of us can guarantee that such a horrific event will not occur, and it is against that possibility—a low risk at present—that we must provide appropriate civil defence.
It is fair to say that civil defence had been a Cinderella subject for successive Governments for more than a decade, until this Government came to office in May 1979. It is only just to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to acknowledge that, under his administration, civil defence has been rescued from that status. Much more attention has been paid to it, and the amount of money devoted to it from public funds has been increased by 60 per cent. following a review, the results of which he announced in August 1980. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South rightly paid tribute to the emergency planning officers, the volunteers in the warning and monitoring organisations and the Royal Observer Corps, to name just a few. All those organisations recognise the recent revival of civil defence.
I accept that we would all wish to do much more, but I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster that it is not a complete picture, when discussing the protection of our children, to say that it is limited to £1 per head a year, based on the annual expenditure on civil defence. My hon. Friend mentioned neutral countries such as Sweden and Switzerland, but they make no contribution to preserving the peace by being part of NATO. We put our money there. Our total defence programme will cost between £14 billion and £15 billion this year. It is better to put one's money into preventing a war than to restrict one's activities to trying to provide for the population all possible protection against the risks of a war that one has done nothing to help to prevent. That is another ingredient to put into the equation when we try to see what lessons we can learn from neutral countries.
It is extremely important to note that, although those countries are neutral, they see the virtue of civil defence. That must be an answer to those who say that countries with civil defence programmes help to increase the risk of war. I believe not only that civil defence is a humanitarian duty but that those who say that civil defence has a part to play in the other considerations that have been mentioned in this debate are right. I shall deal with some of the points that have been made tonight. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South began by saying that until recently the need for civil defence had been common ground across the political board. I agree, and I lament the fact that that has ceased to be the case.
We must look at the arguments of those who attack civil defence and say that in some way it brings war nearer. I cannot see how it can seriously be contended that to provide measures of civil defence of the kind that we have


been discussing in this short debate can seriously increase the risk of attack on this country. The sad truth, as I confirmed at a conference of the Nuclear-Free councils in Manchester in November, which I attended as an invited speaker, is that their overriding objective is to secure that this country becomes neutral and non-aligned. Therefore, they have to persuade the British people to change their minds, because people know very well that being neutral did not save Belgium, Holland, Norway or Sweden in the last war. Nor, in recent times, did it save Afghanistan.
These people know that to change British public opinion they have to satisfy the people that in any conceivable war, in any conceivable circumstances, nobody will be left alive. That is what leads them to say that civil defence is a fraud. When I put that to the representatives of the Nuclear-Free councils, they did not deny it. The CND had opted for a neutral Britain a few weeks before. Therefore, it is right that, while giving a fair examination to the arguments about civil defence on the other side, one should look at the motivation of those who attack civil defence as a fraud.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South asked whether we could give 100 per cent. grant aid. He acknowledged that at the moment the Government reimburse up to 75 per cent. of civil defence expenditure by local authorities. He will have noted that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that in three not unimportant sectors of expenditure he intends, by regulations on which he is at present consulting, to increase that reimbursement to 100 per cent. It would be nice if we could go further, but my hon. Friend will acknowledge that it is important that local authorities should retain discretion and autonomy over what is essentially a local matter. However, progress has been made.
My hon. Friend asked whether we could enlarge the F6 department of the Home Office, which deals with local authorities and civil defence, and perhaps tighten the relationship that it has with local authorities. There is close liaison between local authorities and the Home Department, and a great deal is done. I do not hear complaints from emergency planning officers that the Home Office is too remote.
My hon. Friend suggested that local authorities should act as agents for the Home Office, but that is not as good as civil defence being a clear local authority function. All Government levels are involved in civil defence. The Government have special responsibilities, as do local authorities. It is right that local authorities should continue to act, certainly to some extent, as the agents of Government policy, but they should retain discretion over a wide aspect of the application of civil defence policy to their own areas.
It is an unfortunate fact that in recent years a number of Socialist local authorities, in particular, have declared their hostility to the idea of civil defence. It is therefore right that the Government should announce their intention to tighten up the regulations that impose duties on local authorities in this respect. At present they are limited to planning, and local authorities have previously been content to do a good deal more than simply to plan. Now, because of the political divisions that have arisen, some local authorities are doing only the minimum for which an inadequate law provides. That is why my right hon. Friend has announced his review of the regulations, and it is the

Government's intention to introduce these new regulations, on which consultation has taken place, at an early date.
I have consulted the local authority associations and the GLC, which, I am happy to say, assured me that it does not intend to break the law. As the consultation period has taken rather longer than was first envisaged, these regulations will be brought forward after Easter, not before. It is our intention that the regulations will be in force towards the end of the summer, if Parliament agrees, and they will greatly strengthen the protection that the law can provide for people in this country.
My hon. Friend asked about research, the amount of research that the Home Office carries out, and the funds that are allocated. We have 12 scientists working on civil defence, and their activities include much detailed research on weapon effects, casualties, shelter policies, and the effect of chemical attack. Scientific advisers also help in other matters, including training. It would be nice to have more staff and more funds, but I must point out to my hon. Friend, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Upminister, that every Government Department has to look at the resources that it can afford to devote to a great many desirable objectives, always bearing in mind that if we as a Government spend or borrow too much of the public's money for the economic health of the nation we shall end up by being able to afford less and less, for reasons that I know all my hon. Friends will understand and agree with.

Mr. Loveridge: Although we greatly respect and support the Government's wise sense of economy and the reduction of overseas debt during the past four years, is it not true none the less that this nation is nearly twice as well off overall as it was 30 or 40 years ago, and twice as well off as it was during the last war, when we had several million men under arms? I know that we had lease-lend, but that was only a small sum in comparison with the doubling of the national wealth, which the late Lord Butler forecast for the nation, and which came about. A nation that is nearly twice as wealthy as it was 40 years ago should be able to afford to provide more civil defence for its citizens than we do at present. Will the Government please do that?

Mr. Mayhew: It all depends on what one means by twice as wealthy or twice as well off. The great distinction between Britain 30 or 40 years ago and Britain today, is that 30 or 40 years ago we were pretty well at the top of the league in economic competitiveness. Now we are sadly down that league, although we are improving our position, and, as my hon. Friend acknowledges, we are improving our position because of the economic policies that we are following. If we were to reverse those policies by spending and borrowing more, that improved trend would be reversed. So, although I sympathise with my hon. Friend's desire, I hope that he does not suppose that I hold these responsibilities in a spirit of complacency and satisfaction that we are allowed to spend only £60 million on civil defence during the course of this year.
I know that my hon. Friend does not believe that, but I do not wish to be thought to be disloyal to the policies of the Government. We must all the time remember that we are putting our protective money on the membership of NATO and the maintenance of our deterrent. Of course it is proper to spend money also upon civil defence. As I


have said, we have increased by 60 per cent. the money being spent this year in comparison with what was spent annually before we took office.
I must reply to some more of the important points that have been raised. One of the virtues of this type of debate is that one can take time to answer points. I was asked whether the Home Office could provide more publicity for civil defence and show people what they can do to help themselves. We can undertake to issue civil defence leaflets of the type represented by "Civil Defence—why we need it". My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster was a little harsh about that. The publication was well received when it was published a year and a half or two years ago. We need leaflets and pamphlets of the same simple but clear and forthright type.
I doubt whether detailed handbooks would have more than a minority appeal. Advantage lies in local publications. Local authorities ought to be encouraged to issue civil defence pamphlets bearing upon local problems and geared to local circumstances. The Home Office will reimburse through the grant the expenditure that they incur. I am at one with my hon. Friend on that matter. I listened with great care to what he said about the parish plan; I agree entirely with the compliments that he paid to it.
My hon. Friend asked about the use of volunteers. I remind him what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said in his civil defence statement in August 1980:
We are anxious in particular to enable local emergency planners to maximise the contribution made by the large numbers of citizens both individuals and members of organisations, who wish to add their efforts to civil defence planning on a voluntary basis. Many individual volunteers are already active in the civil defence field and certain voluntary organisations are keen to play a fuller part. The harnessing of volunteer effort will be an important feature of our plans.
Air Marshal Sir Leslie Mayor was appointed in January 1981 to co-ordinate volunteer effort in civil defence in England and Wales and is actively engaged on these matters. His opposite number in Scotland is Mr. Armstrong. The progress made to date by individual counties in harnessing voluntary effort broadly reflects the progress made in civil defence planning itself. In general, rather more is being achieved than might have been expected in the face of negative attitudes towards civil defence. In effect, where a local authority is limp in its approach to civil defence planning, little or nothing is being achieved in the harnessing of voluntary effort other than at best seeking the co-operation of the main national voluntary organisations in coping with major accidents or other peacetime emergencies.
At the other end of the scale, many county authorities—I mention, without giving an exclusive list by any means, Cornwall, Cumbria, Devon, Hereford, Worcester, Hertfordshire, the Isle of Wight, Kent, Norfolk, Somerset, Surrey, east Sussex, Wiltshire, north Yorkshire and a number within the greater London area, including the city of Westminster—are doing extremely well. They have taken their community planning to an advanced stage and have made notable progress towards creating within communities the capacity to react spontaneously to an emergency rather than to wait governmental response. They are mustering and training bodies of volunteers for civil defence tasks within the communities and they have embarked on joint exercises

and reciprocal training programmes with voluntary organisations. There is ground for encouragement there, although there is plenty of room for improvement.

Mr. Neil Thorne: Will my hon. and learned Friend comment on a matter that I raised with him some months ago about the role that might be played by lords lieutenant? Those people were very much involved in the early days of civil defence recruiting. I know that we do not want to go back to the old days of the civil defence corps, but in the first world war the lords lieutenant played a positive role. Has my hon. and learned Friend given any more thought to what they could do now to help to fill any gaps that remain as a result of negative attitudes by some local authorities?

Mr. Mayhew: The lords lieutenant and the high sheriffs are appropriate office holders to take a part in the organisation of voluntary effort. Many of them do so. Many of them find time among their other efforts in voluntary services to play a part in and make a contribution to civil defence. I do not believe that they should be embodied in a special structure in which the lords lieutenant played an ex officio role, but, by virtue of their wide contacts and the high respect in which they are held, they can make an important contribution. Those responsible for organisation would do very well to take their potential into account.

Mr. Gary Waller: My hon. and learned Friend has spoken about the effort involved in getting the co-operation of volunteers. At the opposite end of the scale, many local authorities are seeking powers for their employees to be volunteers and wish to have a conscience clause that would enable them not to have to carry out their duties in the way that the public would expect of them. Will my hon. and learned Friend comment on that, as I believe that someone who takes a job in a local authority knowing that it involves those responsibilities should carry them out in the way that the public expect?

Mr. Mayhew: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who made the right distinction between local authority employees whose job is involved in civil defence and other local authority employees who are not so engaged. He will know that in the draft regulations upon which my right hon. Friend is consulting there is provision for local authority employees to be required to take part in emergency and civil defence work. Those are matters that we must consider. For my part I find if difficult to understand the conscience that would lead someone to say, "No, I cannot bring myself to help my fellow citizens," in the sort of emergency that we are discussing. None the less, I have to acknowledge that many local authority associations have told us that they see a difficulty in that aspect of the draft regulations.
The regulations that will be laid before the House will have regard to, and bear upon, the need for local authorities to provide opportunities for those from the community who want to be taken into a volunteer structure. We have that very much in mind. That represents a change from the present inadequate regulations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Paddington (Mr. Wheeler) is much involved in civil defence matters and has played a substantial part in promoting civil defence in his


part of London and the awareness of the need for civil defence that is so important. I agree with him that the parish plan that was mentioned tonight gives the lie to those who say that civil defence is worthless. The sooner the volunteer organisations in the communities, parishes, parish councils and so on get down to the task of working out, in circumstances of which they alone are the best judge in their own localities, how people can be trained simply to do useful jobs in the event of an emergency, the better.
I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend had to say about NATO and deterrent policies that have prevented attack on this country over the last 30 years or so. I agree, too, that local authorities have not in some cases taken civil defence seriously enough, though I have to correct him on one point. It is £13 million that the local authorities will be spending this year and not, unhappily, £45 million.
Many of my hon. Friends have asked why we cannot provide shelters on the same scale as in Sweden and Switzerland. They have fairly acknowledged the cost. Speaking from memory, I believe that if a new house were required to have shelter accommodation built into it the overall cost would rise by about 25 per cent. The risk of war at the present time, as long as we remain members of NATO, is so low as not to justify that additional expense for those why buy new houses. It is the old story, that if one does not contribute to NATO or spend the sums that we spend on our armed forces, with very good reason, there is more money available for that sort of protection. However, one is then limited to trying to protect one's people from a war that one has done nothing to prevent.
I agree with what my hon. Friend had to say about the importance of a literature campaign. We will certainly do our best to improve our performance in that regard. I very much agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington said about the will of the British people. Once they understand the need, and once they see how much can be done, they will, I believe, reject the arguments of those who support the so-called nuclear-free zones and those who contend that civil defence is a fraud.
I have detained the House too long perhaps, but so interesting and important have been the points raised in the debate that I particularly wanted to deal with them. There are some that have not yet been dealt with. My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster will excuse me if I do not deal with each of the points that he dictated as being necessary, but I undertake to draw the attention of, amongst others, my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary, the Secretary of State for Defence and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, into whose spheres of responsibility he ventured to what he said in the course of his interesting and important speech.
I am delighted that we have had the time to discuss this important subject tonight and I renew my thanks and congratulations to my hon. Friend for giving us the opportunity. To the extent that I have not dealt with the points that he raised in his speech, I undertake to write to him. Meanwhile, I hope that the debate that his initiative has afforded us tonight will play a part in widening the understanding in this country of the need for civil defence and, above all, of its essential character, which is a humanitarian duty.

Security Services (Falklands Campaign)

Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I start by identifying what I hope may be the eventual outcome of this debate over the coming weeks: either the setting up of an inquiry into the conduct of the South Atlantic conflict in relation to decision-making in London—taking into account the precedent of the inquiry into the Crimean war—or at least an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the sinking of the Belgrano—taking into account the precedent of the inquiry into the Jameson raid during the Boer war.
There is a distinction to be made between types of inquiry. One might call for an inquiry into the actions of troops or sailors engaged in battle—for example, what happened at Bluff Cove. I would not be at all keen—as I gather one of our Welsh Nationalist colleagues is—on trying to apportion blame to commanders in the heat of battle, if indeed blame there be. I was too often on 7th Armoured division exercises in the north German plain not to understand perfectly clearly what can happen even in. exercises, let alone in battle. That type of inquiry, therefore, has no support from me.
The second type is rather different. This calls for an inquiry into an act that was basically political. I take the view that the sinking of the Belgrano was basically a political act.
As was readily accepted by the East of Scotland British Legion central committee, meeting in Bo' ness on Saturday 5 March 1983–1 am one of the vice-presidents of that organisation—my criticism has been reserved for politicians, and at no time has it been extended to soldiers, sailors or airmen in the field.
My general view is that the security and intelligence services, like the Foreign Office and the service defence attaches, performed their task during the months preceding and during the Argentine invasion extremely well. The politicians must bear the responsibility for landing Britain in the mire of the south Atlantic.
I begin with a potentially critical question about MI5 and MI6, and I have no idea of the answer. I have given public and private notice to the Leader of the House of my question. I raised the matter during business questions last Thursday. Is it true that an arms dealer in the south of England, whose name is known to the Government, had telephone numbers for contacting senior levels of the security services, and was given the proverbial brush-off when he told them of the activities of Mr. Klein, an arms dealer in New York, and Mr. Karl Villavicienza, an arms dealer in Hamburg, in abusing the end-users certificate system by approaching a Sudanese politician to sign for a batch of 30 Exocets destined for Argentina? Will the Minister label that point A when he replies?
Could the security services really have been so casual as The Observer investigative journalist, Mr. Peter Durisch—who was smuggled into the arms negotiations—suggests in that newspaper? I simply dread to think of properly fused Exocets or Israeli Gabriel missiles in the hands of some maverick Mirage squadron commander in the sticks some 1,500 miles south of Buenos Aires. That may be the immediate danger, rather than a thought-out plan from Buenos Aires.
I refrain from referring to this afternoon's exchanges on the Argentine loan with the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury about the financing of those hideous weapons. However, I am a little curious about the basis on which the security services apparently hand out their phone numbers. On what criteria do people qualify for such special treatment? Let us call that point B.
On Tuesday 26 October, in answer to a specific question on the Falklands, the Prime Minister confirmed what she had said to George Gale in a major interview in the Daily Express—that the Falklands crisis had come out of the blue on Wednesday 31 March. Note that it was not South Georgia or anything of that kind, but the Falklands crisis. George Gale asked her
Did the Falklands crisis come at you more or less out of the blue?
"Out of the blue"
said the Prime Minister.
I turn to the events of this month a year ago, and look at how the security and intelligence services, together with the Foreign Office, performed. The Franks report, page 44, paragraph 150, shows that on 2 March the British defence attache in Buenos Aires wrote to the Governor of the Falkland Islands, copying his letter to the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, about the Argentine military threat to the Falklands. Page 45 of Franks, paragraph 152, shows that on 3 March the British ambassador in Buenos Aires reported further comment in the Argentine press on the unilateral communique. When the Prime Minister saw the telegram, she wrote on it:
We must make contingency plans.
That was written in the right hon. Lady's own handwriting.
The Franks report, page 45, paragraph 153, shows that on 8 March, the Prime Minister spoke to the right hon. Member for St. Ives (Sir J. Nott), the then Secretary of State for Defence, and asked him how quickly Royal Navy ships could be deployed in the Falkland Islands if required.
In my oral evidence to the Franks committee I told Lord Franks, with respect, that he had a duty to make it clear whether he believed that the Prime Minister—to use the phrase which I told Franks I had borrowed from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—not averse from having a fight should the situation develop,
lured the Argentines on to the punch".
I put it to the House that the following references endorse that cold and rather brutal view of the Prime Minister's behaviour: paragraph 157—personal messages from Carrington to Haig; paragraph 155—draft telegram from Carrington to Costa Mendes, 18 March; paragraph 169—Foreign and Defence Ministers agreed on 20 March that Endurance should sail for South Georgia; paragraph 187—minute from Carrington to the Prime Minister, 24 March; paragraph 153—
on 8 March the Prime Minister, for whom the crisis was to come out of the blue on 31 March, spoke to Mr. Nott and asked him how quickly Royal Naval ships could be deployed to the Falklands Islands if required.
A Prime Minister who supposed that there was not a possibility of an invasion in the near future would not have asked her Defence Secretary that question.
Consider the reply—incidentally, four days later, mid-week:

Passage of time for a frigate deployed to the Falklands, which would require Royal Fleet Auxiliary support, would be of the order of 20 days.
That would have taken to 28 March.
What this adds up to is that, solemnly warned of the need to make contingency plans, which she herself had accepted three days before, the Prime Minister could have had frigates and Royal Fleet auxiliaries in the Falklands by Sunday 28 March.
This is all against the background, if we are discussing the security services, of paragraph 95, the final paragraph of the JIC assessment of 9 July 1981, which stated that if Argentina concluded that there was no hope of a peaceful transfer of sovereignty there would be a high risk of its resorting to more forcible measures against British interests and it might act swiftly and without warning. In such circumstances, military action against British shipping or—again the JIC report—of a full-scale invasion of the Falkland Islands could not be discounted.
Moreover, the Prime Minister knew from the week that she entered Downing Street in May 1979 that the Falklands presented one of the most potentially dangerous situations that she inherited. The Cabinet Secretary of the day briefs every incoming Prime Minister on the really thorny issues and alerts Prime Ministers to Foreign Office and intelligence identification of thorny problems.
Against such a background, why did the Prime Minister not put the Falklands, in early March 1982, on the agenda of the Defence and Overseas Policy Committee of the Cabinet? Was it simply that the Cabinet seemed to be ignored? It is an astonishing fact that from earlyish April the war seems to have been conducted by the Prime Minister, Admiral Lewin, Admiral Fieldhouse and the right hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South (Mr. Parkinson). They, basically, were the troika who seem to have made the decisions in support of the Prime Minister.
Or is there a more sinister explanation—that, knowing what she did—clearly, from the meat for all to read in the Franks report—she was not averse to allowing the situation to run so that she could be able to present Britain as the injured party and have a little war that would rally the nation behind her?
If this is a dreadful allegation and imputation to make against the British Prime Minister, why is it that, knowing what she did, she never at any time, either directly or through the Foreign Office or the intelligence service, as far as any of us know, let Buenos Aires know what would be the consequence, in the form of the task force, of an invasion of the Falklands?
With respect, the Franks committee has not refuted that which I told it in oral evidence it would be expected to refute—that the British Prime Minister lured the Argentines on to the punch. It is, of course, a possible explanation that she had sensibly reconciled herself to the long-held Foreign Office view that if Argentina were to attack we would have to accept the fait accompli with as good a grace as possible, fortress Falklands being untenable in the long term—to give credit to the Foreign Office, it understood that—and that the Prime Minister was panicked by the popular press and Back Benchers.
Considering the litany of occasions that Franks reveals, and knowing what she did, there is no explanation of why the Prime Minister failed to warn and act and was content to allow nothing to be done. It might have been fine had she not contrived to give the impression of taking a malleable attitude and then adopting the astoundingly hard


attitude of sending a task force. In life and diplomacy it is accepted that to compromise after a hard line is acceptable. What is bordering on the criminal is to take a hard line, having given the impression of compromise and a soft line. That is what people mean by "luring on to the punch".
Out of the blue, it appears from page 43, paragraph 147, referring to Friday 5 March 1982, that John Ure, assistant Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for North and South America, recorded that the Cabinet office had said that the Prime Minister would like the next defence committee paper on the Falklands to include annexes on both civil and military contingency plans. A Prime Minister who claims that the crisis came out of the blue on Wednesday 31 March was asking for contingency plans 26 days earlier. Again, by what semantics of the English language can that be explained?
Disclosure of the truth, as Solzhenitsyn put it, cannot be wrong. In sum, point C is to ask, what is the Prime Minister's explanation of her behaviour in the light of what Franks says that she knew from intelligence and Foreign Office sources? Her answer on 26 October is a travesty of the English language and a gross, purposeful and wilful misleading of the House of Commons.
Point D is, how does the Prime Minister's answer to the House on 26 October approximate to the truth? Point E is on the related issue of just when the Government knew about the preparations for the Argentine invasion. I am inclined to believe—I say "inclined to believe"—the satement of the Argentine general, Gugliamelli, that the decision to invade was taken on 12 January 1982. Be that as it may, it is certain that the post-Franks notion that the Argentines had not made invasion plans until two, three or four days before the event, and that therefore no one could have foretold the attack and that the British Government must be exonerated, is unreal.
I assert that there were secret reports from MI6 agents in Buenos Aires, whose presence incidentally is referred to in The Scotsman of 17 January by Alexander MacLeod in his truly remarkable disclosure of what was in the Franks report before that was available. The previous day's publication gave a clear picture of the build-up to the invasion, and on that, because of the delicate nature of the question, I ask the Minister simply to acknowledge that MI6 in Buenos Aires performed its task properly.
On 17 January in The Scotsman Alexander MacLeod wrote:
In the week or ten days before the invasion, dispatches from the British Embassy in Argentina, secret reports by MI6 agents in Buenos Aires, urgent messages from the skipper of the patrol ship HMS Endurance".
That was in the public print.
I refer to the letter of 28 February 1983 from the Foreign Secretary which says:
Thank you for your letter of 22 February about a report in the Buenos Aires newspaper La Razon concerning the alleged timing of the Junta's decision to invade the Falkland Islands.
I have so far only seen summaries of the article. It claims that, at the meeting on 12 January 1982, referred in The Guardian's article enclosed in. your letter, the Junta secretly set up a military working group to consider the feasibility of such an invasion, that a tentative date later in the year was suggested for an invasion attempt; that this date was subsequently brought forward to May 1982; and that finally in the light of events in South Georgia in the latter part of March, it was decided to launch an invasion in 1 April (then change again to the 2 April).
I understand that the newspaper gave no sources for these assertions. It would be unwise to take such a story at face value. But even if the story were true, there would be no inconsistency

between it and the conclusion of the Franks Report that the decision to invade on 2 April was taken at a very late stage, and probably (as paragraph 263 states) 'in the light of the South Georgia situation.'—Yours Sincerely, Francis Pym.
It beggars belief to anyone who knows South America that the ramshackle Argentine military establishment could have mounted an invasion at a few days' notice even given that there were exercises.
We return to the security and intelligence services, because they gave warnings. I have heard that so concerned were the intelligence services and the Foreign Office that they persuaded, at an early stage, the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) to approach the Opposition Front Bench and plead wath them to support leaseback in the House some days before the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury made the statement for which he was mauled by the House of Commons.
Point F—this has to be cleared up—is either true or untrue. If it is true, who was approached? Was it those who had considered the Falkland Islands in the Labour Cabinet sub-committee, and what, if it is true, did they say? I have been told that the passage in my book "One Man's Falklands", dealing with the Ridley initiative, which I submitted to Lord Franks at his request, is incomplete in that it omits the then Minister of State at the Foreign Office having approached the official Opposition to ask for their support on leaseback. For the sake of the officials involved, if for nobody else, this matter ought to be cleared up.
Before going on to March 1982 it is necessary to ask questions about the control of nuclear weapons in the light of the following facts. First, on 28 March, three days before the Prime Minister told the Commons that the Falklands crisis had come out of the blue, the crew of the RFA Fort Austin were informed by the barmaids of Gibraltar that they were going not home to Britain after five and a half months in the sweltering Gulf but to the south Atlantic. Secondly, on March 29, ships and RFA vessels on Exercise Springtrain were ordered south. Thirdly, a number of those vessels carried nuclear weapons. Fourthly, some of the ships left Portsmouth in early April carrying nuclear weapons. Fifthly, there was a row of gargantuan proportions about this in parts of Whitehall, as a result of which some, though not all of the nuclear weapons were offloaded from the ships when they were at sea, before they got to the western approaches. Sixthly, the Stenor Inspector and the Stenor Seasearch have been trying to retrieve nuclear devices from the tombs of HMS Sheffield and HMS Coventry.
Seventhly, there is also the problem of lost nuclear depth charges from two lost Sea King mark 4 and two lost Sea King mark 5 helicopters. Eighthly, the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed), the former Navy Minister, who lost his post, opined on "News Night" that he would be most surprised if the fleet were not carrying nuclear weapons.
Point G is whether our security services let our American allies know in advance that we British were taking nuclear weapons into their hemisphere against protocol 1 of the treaty of Tlatelolco of which both Britain and the Americans are signatories. The related question is, what do we now say as British people to the non-aligned nations which, meeting in Delhi, asked us to remove nuclear weapons from land and sea areas around the Falklands? It is all very well to say that we would never


have used nuclear weapons. That seems to be the received wisdom. However, can we be quite sure? Let us suppose, heaven help us, that Invincible, Hermes or Canberra, hit by a torpedo which actually exploded, had gone down with a loss of life comparable to the sinking of the Belgrano. There might have been an irresistible demand, in a losing situation, to go ahead—as was, indeed, discussed in certain quarters—to bomb granaries and airfields in Argentina. Those who have nuclear weapons in desperate situations may be tempted not to be choosy about how they use them. The whole operation was a hideous gamble, with no long-term prize for this country.
Point H asks, first, what British policy is on explaining taking nuclear weapons to the south Atlantic in the first place and, secondly, what British policy is on the current existence of nuclear weapons in and around the Falkland Islands.
Before turning to the crucial question of the sinking of the Belgrano, which moved the war from second to fifth gear and is the source of many of the lasting, seemingly intransigent problems that we now face, I should point out that there has been no ministerial attempt to answer, point by point, the issues that I first raised on 21 December and have raised several times since then. Had Ministers seen fit to give a point-by-point candid response to that debate at any time in the past three months, either in the House or by detailed letter or written answer, they might have saved themselves a good deal of trouble. Late in December I wrote to the previous Secretary of State as follows:
Dear John,
It was nice of you on 21st December to tell me that you had read my book, 'One Man's Falklands' and to make courteous comment. However I do not agree that in any sense I went 'over the top' in my speech that evening. In column 903, you interrupted this speech to say, 'I think I should say to the hon. Gentleman as he is making these charges that a very, very large proportion of what he has said is just totally and completely untrue.' Now, without trying to be clever, clever about it, because these matters are far too serious for cheap point scoring, a very, very large proportion of what I said came directly or indirectly from Parliamentary answers, given by MoD, the Foreign Office or the Prime Minister. When you interrupted, and I gave way, it occurred to me to ask you there and then IN WHAT PARTICULAR RESPECTS you thought what I said was totally and completely untrue.
I was only deterred by Pat Duffy, fuming away, wanting to be called and the fact that I had already spoken for 25 minutes.
I concluded the letter by saying:
But before the Cabinet re-shuffle that we read about, I would like to invite you to write to me, specifying exactly what you had in mind.
He never did so. I shall not start criticising individuals, or the former Secretary of State for Defence. However, on 29 December The Scotsman contained an article by Mr. Keith Aitken saying:
Mr. Dalyell has now written inviting Mr. Nott to specify which of his claims were based on false information.
Apart from the horror of what happened over the Belgrano, which has been revived by Argentine parents coming to Europe—a horror, incidentally, shared by many sailors in the Royal Navy—and the political consequences that rumble on throughout Latin America to Britain's disadvantage, the Prime Minister's action on Monday 2 May reveals that the Prime Minister is not a fit person to lead a British Government. If that is thought to be extreme, hon. Members should consider the facts.
First, we are told that the Belgrano was sunk under the rules of engagement. That is what Parliament, the press and the public were led to believe on 4 and 5 May. Indeed, at the bottom of c. 900 on 21 December I referred to the statement of 5 May in the Official Report at c.156:
The actual decision to launch a torpedo was clearly one taken by the submarine commander".—[Official Report, 21 December 1982; Vol. 34, c. 900.]
Yet on 5 July Commander Christopher Wreford Brown returned to Faslane and let the cat out of the bag. He did it, he said, on instructions from Northwood. He was a first-time submarine commander.
What is the explanation of the statement by the Secretary of State for Defence on 4 and 5 May? It contains a litany of lies. The first was that the Belgrano had been sunk under the rules of engagement. No, it was sunk on orders from Northwood. I shall go into this in detail. The second is that the Belgrano and escorts were converging on units of the task force. No, not at all. It was going "West-north-west". No units of the task force or task group—I understand the difference between the two—were to the west of where the Belgrano was sunk.
Thirdly, he said that contact would be lost over the Burdwood bank. Again, that was false. The shallowest area of the Burdwood bank is 25 fathoms—that is 150-odd feet of water—and the average is 90 fathoms—540 feet of water. The Belgrano was sunk outside the Burdwood bank going in the other direction by at last 50 nautical miles. That is 59 miles outside any conceivable limit of the exclusion zone. So that is not so.
Fourthly, it is said that it was a threat to the task force. It was not. We knew that the range of the M38 Exocets, because we were part manufacturers, was 20 miles. I refer to the questions that my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) was putting this afternoon about arms.
The fifth explanation was the pincer movement involving the carrier, the 25 De Mayo. No, the carrier and escorts were in port. I assert that American and our intelligence knew that to be so. I shall go into this matter in detail.
Sixthly, it is said that the Conqueror detected the Belgrano on 2 May. That is contained in paragraph 110 of the White Paper. No, it was on 1 May or possibly 30 April. Members of the crew, with whom I have been in contact, say that The Sunday Times book and the Jenkins and Hastings book is correct on this crucial point.
One wonders why there is that inaccuracy in the White Paper and in Admiral Fieldhouse's report. Confronted with half a dozen significant and substantial deceptions and one excuse after another that is being produced when the previous excuse has failed, one begins to wonder. Between the siting of the Belgrano on 1 May or possibly 30 April and the order to sink, the Prime Minister was confronted with a peace compromise that most of the world and the Labour Opposition would have expected her to accept. What was at risk at that moment were not the ships of the British fleet but the Conservative party's leadership.
I quote King Lear:
Truth is a dog that must to kennel, where the lady bitch untruth may stand by the fire and stink.
Point I: why are there such discrepancies in the parliamentary answers? I understand that Simon Jenkins has written to that most excellent and serious publication the London Review of Books quarrelling with my review


of his and Max Hastings' important and well-written book "Falklands War", but even Simon Jenkins in his letter concludes that Ministers have not yet given a detailed response to what he calls the damaging accusation that I and others have made.
It is not sufficient to say that the admirals asked for permission because they were worried about Belgrano, during amphibious landings or because they were worried about the carrier 25 De Mayo. Given the Nimrod information and the other circumstances set out in detail on 21 December, that will not do. On 25 May the carrier and the Santissima Trinidad, the Hercules and her escorts never left Puerto Belgrano, the naval base, and Northwood and the Prime Minister knew that from the Americans, MI6 and, as I shall show, from Nimrod.
I take the solemn responsibility of charging the Prime Minister with a particular specific war crime and high misdemeanour. She gave the orders pre-lunch at Chequers on Sunday 2 May 1982 for HMS Conqueror to unleash its mark 8 torpedoes against the Belgrano, behind the back of her Foreign Secretary, without consulting our allies, the American Government, in the knowledge that the Belgrano and her escorts were at that time no conceivable threat to the task force and in the knowledge that Galtieri had ordered the withdrawal of the army from the Falklands-Malvinas on the evening of Saturday 1 May on the basis of the Peruvian-American United Nations peace terms. My detailed account in Hansard of 21 December of how the Government's excuses for sinking the Belgrano are different in explanation after explanation and exposed as false has never been answered.
New and damning evidence is coming to the light of day. Members of the task force are beginning to talk. I believe that Britain had cracked the not very sophisticated codes by which the admirals in Argentina communicated with their ships at sea and, on May 1 and 2, knew precisely what were the orders to the Belgrano and her escorts, the Piedra Buena and the Hippolito Bouchard. A not very difficult task was made easier by the fact that senior and middle-ranking officers of the Argentine navy had been regular attenders at courses run by the Royal Navy at Portsmouth and elsewhere.
One recalls my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands), a former Foreign Office Minister, blurting out, in the now notorious Commons debate of 3 April,
Last night the Secretary of State for Defence asked 'How can we read the mind of the enemy?' I shall make a disclosure. As well as trying to read the mind of the enemy, we have been reading its telegrams for many years." [Official Report, 3 April 1982; Vol. 21, c. 650.]
Writing in The Times on Saturday 15 January 1983, my hon. Friend wrote:
Their action"—
this refers to 1976 in South Thule—
created a dilemma for the Government. Preparations were already well in hand to launch a major new initiative involving my visit to the islands and to Buenos Aires to work out the terms of reference for fresh negotiations. The problem was compounded by intelligence received from sources close to the head of the Argentine Navy, Admiral Massera. Massera was the naval equivalent to Galtieri—a populist with consuming political ambition—and we knew that he would seek to use the Falklands issue to further that end".
The former and responsible Foreign Office Minister makes clear what was our understanding of Argentine intelligence and how well placed were our contacts. That is all in the public print, let alone what I have been told

privately. I assert that for many years we have had excellent intelligence from Buenos Aires and, given the nature of the Argentine population—the present air force commander has the name of Hughes—it would be surprising if this were not so.
Point J is this. Was my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil in any way wrong? In the land of Mr. Juan McCafferty, a leader of the Scottish community in Argentina, of Mr. Pablo LLewellyn, a leader of the Welsh community, of Brigadeer Hughes, the current air force commander, or of Jock MacDonald, the Argentine ambassador to Tokyo, it is not difficult for M16 to operate.
On 8 June, enemy aircraft attacked the landing ships Sir Galahad and Sir Tristram at Bluff Cove, and, tragically, 50 men were killed.
We wished to conceal the extent of the casualties'",
Sir Terence Lewin stated on the record,
because we knew from intelligence that the Argentines thought that they were very much higher.
Indeed, Lewin praises the intelligence. I simply say that I believe those who tell me that I can take it that on 8 June, as over the period to which my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil referred, we had no difficulty in picking up and decoding the messages between the Argentine mainland and their ships at sea. I am told that for hours there had been no imposition of radio silence between the Belgrano and her escorts before the sinking as they imagined that they were going home and that peace was breaking out.
I had better be clear and produce evidence about the Nimrods. They did 111 sorties. It is all here in Sir John Fieldhouse's supplement to the London Gazette. He refers to four Nimrods on page 16111 in the London Gazette on 14 December 1982. On page 16112, Sir John says:
Nimrods mounted 111 sorties from the Island".
On page 16119, he gave the following important information:
Nimrod aircraft were the first to be based on Ascension Island, on 6 April. They were immediately involved as communications links for the transitting nuclear submarines and thereafter they continually provided direct support and area surveillance to every major element of the Task Force to the limit of the aircraft's range. All deployments of small aircraft were provided with airborne search and rescue cover and, after the fitting of refuelling probes, Nimrods converted for air to air refuelling provided long range surveillance of the sea areas between the Falkland Islands and the Argentinian mainland prior to and during the main amphibious landing.
The Nimrods have twin Marconi AD 470 HF transceivers, which are easily able to intercept radio messages. The Nimrods also have encryption facilities for sending coded messages in flight. Therefore, they could have transmitted the messages between the Belgrano and the mainland back to Northwood, the task force and thence quickly to the Prime Minister.
A few years ago, I had the good fortune to fly in a Nimrod from St. Mawgan. I marvelled at the search capability of this flying electronic laboratory. What I am saying is well known. Flight International of 15 May 1982 says the following:
On May 8 a further 20 Harriers and Sea Harriers were air-refuelled direct to Ascension Island in a record nine-hour flight. A number of Nimrod Mk 2s have been fitted with in-flight refuelling probes, and after a hasty evaluation at Boscombe Down have deployed to Ascension. With in-flight refuelling and fuel conservation by shutting down two engines, the Nimrods should have a useful five or six hours on station in the Falklands area.


There was no difficulty from the Ascension base because of the refuelling. They were almost as good as the American AWACs.
Point L is: were we reading the signals between the Argentine mainland and the Belgrano? If we were, did we know that they were under orders to return to Uschaia? If we did know, when was that knowledge made available to responsible Ministers?
I also believe that the Hipolito Bouchard knew well for many hours where the SSN was. The sonar equipment on that ship is the extremely sensitive SQS 30 and the SQA 10. There is nothing secret about this. Jane's Fighting Ships says that the sonar of the Piedra Buena and the Hipolita Bouchard is the SQS 30 and the SQA 10 (VDS) and that their radar is the SPS 6 and the SPS 40. It is inconceivable that the Argentine officers did not know of the presence of the huge SSN, which is not as silent as the 0-class, a mere 4,000 yards away. That is the distance when the mark 8 torpedo was fired. Furthermore, most of the victims were in the ship's canteen or in the sleeping quarters, according to page 34 of The Sunday Times of 17 October 1982. Does not that show that Captain Hector Bonzo of Belgrano believed that the war was over? That would be consistent with the orders.
We now know what the orders from Argentina to its ships were, not least because Admiral Inaya—the navy member of the junta—has been bitterly and publicly rebuked by the pilots of the Aviacon Naval, the Argentine equivalent of the Fleet Air Arm, who showed courage and skill in the conflict, for his treachery in issuing orders. They were that the Belgrano, the Piedra Buena and the Hipolito Bouchard should return to their home port of Uschaia, and that is precisely what they were doing, on a 280 deg. course west-north-west towards the entrance of the straits of Magellan, when the Conqueror struck some 50 miles outside the exclusion zone.
In making the charge that Northwood had deciphered and could read the instructions from Inaya, given in the belief that peace was certain, I am not saying anything that I have not said before to Ministers' faces. During the public expenditure debate on Wednesday 9 March, when we dealt with MI5 and MI6 under the Foreign Office Vote, I made similar statements. No reply was given in the windup—I do not complain too much about that—and no reply has been given since then. Point M is, why has there been no response to my speech in the House on 9 March and not a cheep out of Ministers?
At a meeting on Tuesday of last week with some of my hon. Friends and myself, at the request of Ambassador Luebbers, to explain the position of the United States of America in Guatemala and Nicaragua, he let the cat out of the bag by saying, quite nicely, that the British should be grateful not only for Sidewinder—without which the Falklands war might have been a military defeat for Britain—but for intelligence. Ministers' references to pincer movements by the carrier 25 de Mayo and her escorts the Santissima Trinidad and the Hercules are codswallop, because we knew from satellite pictures that they never left port during the period that the Belgrano was being followed by HMS Conqueror.
The White Paper statement that Conqueror detected the Belgrano on 2 May is simply not right. Members of the

crew have confirmed that both The Sunday Times book and Hastings and Jenkins are right to say that the Conqueror had Belgrano in her sights from 1 May, or even 30 April.
Point 0 is how do the Government explain Ambassador Luebbers' comments? Can we make any interpretation other than what has been said frequently: that we had access to American satellite data? I visited the university of East Anglia recently. Using computational geometry, it is very easy, from satellite pictures of such quality, to build up pictures of where ironclad ships are.
The crime of the Prime Minister is that she ordered the sinking of the Belgrano, not out of military necessity or even for military advantage but because she was faced with a political compromise involving the withdrawal of all forces from the Falklands, which the rest of the world would have expected her to accept. The paramount threat was not to the fleet but that the present Foreign Secretary might replace her in Downing street. Now, as the weeks go by, it becomes clear in Delhi, at the United Nations and elsewhere that Britain will not be forgiven for the Belgrano and that, in the absence of negotiations about sovereignty, there will, probably in 1984 or 1985, be what one might call, dreadfully, a "replay", with yet more young British and Argentine blood spilt. Responsibility for such a tragedy will lie in the ruthless domestic politicking of the Prime Minister.
I had a two-hour conversation this week with German Sopena the Paris correspondent of La Piensa, who is reported in The Sunday Times under the heading "Torpedo sank peace hopes":
The President of Peru, Belaunde Terry, has confirmed that his attempts to prevent the Falkland War failed because the British torpedoed the cruiser General Belgrano, killing 368 Argentinians, as negotiations were taking place. Speaking for the first time of his intervention, he has told an Argentinian journalist, German Sopena, how shocked he was at hearing the news.
The rest of that is in The Sunday Times, 20 March 1982.
The whole sequence of events in the Peruvian peace plan was outlined in my book "One Man's Falklands". Although the Foreign Office was sufficiently interested to send a dispatch rider to the home of my publishers Cecil Wolf and Jean Moorcroft Wilson to get a pre-publication copy ostensibly for a Cabinet Minister, no one has yet dented my account of the interlocking between the Peruvian peace plan and sinking of the Belgrano.
Sopena told me that President Belaunde Terry told him that both he and the Americans suggested that after Sheffield had been sunk, in a sense, tit for the Belgrano tat, his peace plan could have been reactivated. However, by that time, Buenos Aires did not want that because of the shock at the loss of young life, and the British just wanted to continue to fight.
When I say that the British wanted to fight, I do not refer to most of the service men who had to do the actual fighting. Read Lieutenant David Tinker on that. It was the Prime Minister, the loudmouthed idiots on the safety of these green Benches who yelled her on, and some equally strident and shallow journalists operating from the safety of Fleet street. Those were the people yelling her on, not those down in the south Atlantic.
Thirty years ago, in a tank crew in the Rhine Army, I was only too conscious of what it would be like to be brewed up in a tank by shells from guns that one could not see. No sailor, soldier or airman wants to take part in an Exocet war if he can avoid it, and the Falklands could easily have been avoided. The conditions for a just war


were not met, and the conditions are that every step taken by the politicians should avoid war. Furthermore, the whole concept of proportionality became absurd, considering that the issue now is 1,800 people, and numbers do matter.
We should have at least let the Peruvian initiative run to the end. If it is thought that I am off beam and an eccentric in what I am saying, I just quote Hugo Young in The Sunday Times, who said that a Cabinet Minister had explained to him that the purpose of the apparently intense search for peace was to make the British understand that they had to go to war. On the whole, the Minister said that it was a
great relief to the Cabinet that, by the time that the British settlement offer was made, the Argentinians were in no mood to talk.
How serious and sincere were the Government in their attempts to avoid having to regain the islands by force?
From a very early stage, the Prime Minister perceived an opportunity, having established Britain as an injured party, to test our military preparedness. Reconciliation is not a word in the Prime Minister's vocabulary. Before anybody sneers, I point out that I was one of the very few Members of Parliament on either side of the House to take the trouble to see the right hon. Lady when she properly made the offer on 20 April to see hon. Members. I went to see her on 21 April.
There have been differences of judgment on the Falklands between some of us on the Opposition Back Benches and some of the members of the shadow Cabinet. There should be no differences about the need to establish the veracity of the, Prime Minister. An investigation would have been mounted from the Floor of a previous House of Commons—which my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) and I can possibly remember 20 years ago—by some of the old friends of myself and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot). I wonder what Dick Crossman or Sydney Silverman, George Wigg or Leslie Hale in their heyday would have done to stop a Prime Minister from getting away with so many unanswered questions and with such an unconvincing interpretation of events. I remember what some of my hon. Friends did over Hola. My first Opposition leader, Hugh Gaitskell, would have interrogated any Prime Minister in such a position. So would my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) in the years 1963–64. In circumstances that I believe to be more disreputable than Rambouillet or Suez, I ask the shadow Cabinet to make sure that these allegations get at least a proper reply. Silence by the Government throughout the recess can only be construed now as assent to what I am saying.
If all this were simply a matter of history, if relations between Britain and Argentina were on the way to being patched up, if there seemed to be any prospect of a return to normality, there might be a case for saying that I and others should let bygones be bygones and let sleeping dogs lie. Alas, far from improving the British situation, predictably and predicted, foreseeably and foreseen, it is getting worse. The £880 million for Stanley airport is only the most dramatic item of expenditure in a horrendous list of costs associated with Fortress Falklands. The outcome was rightly perceived by the Foreign Office, and in my view rightly perceived by Lord Carrington.
As with the Americans in Vietnam, the facts of geography are against us.
I am glad, at a time when the rest of the political life of this nation has its eyes fixed on Darlington, not Westminster, to place this considered proposition before the House of Commons. The circumstances, the facts and, in many cases, the hard evidence that I have placed before the House are of such a nature that an inquiry into the conduct of the Falklands conflict, taking into account the precedent of the inquiry into the Crimean war and the inquiry into the Jameson raid during the Boer war, is warranted.
The picture that emerges is that of a Prime Minister who opted for war on occasion after occasion. I think just of 7 April, when Alexander Haig was actually mid-air on his way to see us, when she declared the military exclusion zone. That was a provocative act. She might at least have waited until the American Secretary of State had had his say. I think, too, of South Georgia and all that, and Jenkins and Hastings with their description of Goose Green. If ever there was a politicians' battle, Goose Green was it. Again and again the Prime Minister opted for war, when she should have had peace with honour. We see a Prime Minister who, for domestic political reasons, wanted military victory just as Galtieri, for his own discreditable reasons, wanted to invade the Falklands, in a situation where there was no military solution to be had in the long term.
In particular, the burden of proof is now on the Prime Minister to refute the charge, supported by fact and in detail, that knowing the orders to the Belgrano to return to port, knowing the seriousness of intent of the withdrawal of forces by Argentina and of their orders, knowing that there would be huge casualties among young men, without telling—let alone consulting—our American allies, without warning the Foreign Secretary—possibly egged on by Lewin and Fieldhouse, I know not, who must have known perfectly well at the time of the sinking of the Belgrano that it was no threat to their task force—for the sake of her own political position or reputation she let loose a slaughter the effects of which are still reverberating around the world, to the disadvantage of our country.
Quite quietly tonight I say to the House that the Prime Minister must seek a parliamentary opportunity to reply to the charge of war crime and high misdemeanour. When I gave oral evidence to the Franks committee, Lord Franks said that some tangential comment, referring to events after 2 April, could not be taken into account. Even last week when I went to Independent Radio News I was asked why I went on about the Belgrano, since Franks had exonerated the Government. If the IRN commentators do not realise that Franks did not cover the Belgrano, how many others who are not commentators are in the same position?
A commission of inquiry should be set up into the conduct of the Falklands war, taking into account the precedents. Such an inquiry would perhaps reveal that the Prime Minister has misled the House of Commons to an extent that it has never been misled before. If it had been Harold Macmillan, the Prime Minister when I came into Parliament, or Alec Douglas-Home or the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), it is exceedingly unlikely that I would ever have been making a speech of this kind.
I do not think that anything like this episode has happened during the parliamentary lifetime of any of us. It has probably been established that the security services and the Foreign Office performed properly. Is not the evidence that the head of Government misled the House


of Commons sufficiently disturbing to warrant an inquiry? If the Prime Minister is innocent of all this or of most of it, she should in her own self-interest institute an inquiry. That is what the debate asks for.

Dr. Oonagh McDonald: I intend to make only a few brief remarks. Both during and since the Falklands war the Opposition Front Bench has made various accusations against the Government's conduct of that war. The accusations start with the claim that the announcement of the withdrawal of the Endurance was a grave error and that Argentina was bound to interpret that in a way that was perhaps not intended by the Government but as a sign that Britain was prepared to give up sovereignty of the Falklands.
The Front Bench spokesmen, among whom I include my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), have all in their various ways criticised the Prime Minister in particular and her Government for what could be summed up as negligence during the events leading up to the Falklands war.
The claim has been throughout that the Prime Minister should have responded at an earlier stage to all the signs that Argentina was preparing to invade the Falklands. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East drew on his experience in government in 1977 and argued that the Government should have adopted a similar method of dealing with the threat.
Those criticisms, which are best summed up by the word "negligence", are different from the claim made this evening by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). His claim, both on the decision to respond to the invasion by sending the task force and the consequent war with Argentina, is that the Prime Minister deliberately used or engineered that opportunity to strengthen her political position. My hon. Friend stated that the sinking of the Belgrano was basically "a political act"; I have quoted the words that he used.
If that is true, it is an extremely serious charge. It is a charge that the Prime Minister is guilty of a war crime. If it is true, it perhaps puts the sinking of the Belgrano on a par with the sinking of the Lusitania in the first world war. My hon. Friend makes that accusation conscientiously and honestly. He has assembled a great deal of information which he regards as conclusive evidence for his claim. He has provided us with a tour de force of the various aspects of the events leading up to and occurring during the Falklands war. Nevertheless, I am not clear that they support the serious accusation that he has made that the sinking of the Belgrano was a political act. In spite of all that we have heard this evening, that claim has not been substantiated, though I am aware of the honesty and hard work that have gone into my hon. Friend's speech.
On the other hand, the Government have claimed from the start, for example in the statement made on 4 May 1982 by the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for St. Ives (Sir J. Nott), that the sinking of the Belgrano was a military necessity. That follows from all that is set out in columns 29 and 30 of the Official Report for that

day. The right hon. Gentleman claims that the General Belgrano, although outside the exclusion zone—which was admitted from the start—
was closing on elements of our task force, which was only hours away … We knew that the cruiser itself has substantial fire power … and Seacat anti-aircraft missiles. Together with its escorting destroyers which we believe were equipped with Exocet anti-ship missiles with a range of more than 20 miles, the threat to the task force was such that the task force commander could ignore it only at his peril."—[Official Report, 4 May 1982; Vol. 23, c. 30.]
Therefore, the Government claimed both on 4 May 1982 and, in a sense, in the Franks report in paragraph 110, where the sinking of the Belgrano is described in the description of the moves from South Georgia to San Carlos, that their action was a military necessity. However, in view of the serious nature of my hon. Friend's charge, perhaps there has to be a departure from the principle of "innocent until proved guilty." Perhaps the Government should say more to justify their claim that the sinking of the Belgrano was a military necessity.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Jerry Wiggin): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) for her brief intervention. I am concerned that she should say from the Front Bench things that are based on no greater evidence that the words of her hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), whose arguments I seek and hope to demolish.
The hon. Gentleman has regaled the House again with his personal version of just about everything to do with the whole Falklands conflict. Like all good tales, his acquires fresh embellishments each time it is told. I know that the hon. Gentleman is well educated. He went to the best of all possible schools, as I did. His quotation from Shakespeare in relation to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was not worthy of him. I hope that he will think with care about whether he owes her an apology.
The hon. Gentleman is well educated enough to have heard of the worthy Baron von Munchhausen, a gentleman of the eighteenth century, of whom his biographer says:
and of his adventures among the Turks, he told the most extravagant stories, till his fancy so completely got the better of his memory that he believed his own extravagant fictions.
One of the hon. Gentleman's endearing characteristics —though some of my long-suffering right hon. and hon. Friends might resort to a less kindly epithet—is the way in which, through thick and thin, he manages to pursue his pet theories long past the point at which anyone else would have realised that he might have got hold of the wrong end of the stick.
The hon. Gentleman's modus operandi puts me in mind of that well known brigand from Greek mythology, Procrustes. Travellers unlucky enough to run into him were forced to lie in his bed: if their legs were too long he chopped them off; and if they were too short they were stretched until their feet reached the bedposts. The hon. Gentleman's obsessions are like Procrustes' bed, and facts the travellers: if they fail to fit, they are either ignored or misinterpreted. At all accounts, they must be made to fit the theory. In the end, Procrustes got his comeuppance.
The hon. Gentleman is made of sterner stuff. Not content with asking 60 or so questions about the sinking of the Belgrano, he made a lengthy intervention on the subject in last December's debate on the Falklands White Paper. He has written a book. And now he has once again returned to the charge and treated us to his idiosyncratic


reconstruction of the sequence of events. I see no option but, once again, to take him through the explanation already given him.
Before I do so, I should like first to say a few words about the treatment of security and intelligence matters in the press and in this House. This area has been the source of more ill-found rumour and unprincipled speculation than almost any other. Take, for example, the series of imaginative allegations about prior warning of the Falklands invasion which have been made, and which I am glad to say the Franks report has completely scotched. I commend the hon. Gentleman to annex A of that report: it makes sobering reading for anyone who, like himself, is concerned to stir the pot of rumour and speculation without access to the facts and to chase any hare raised by the press so long as he sees political advantage in doing so.
The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that it is not the custom of this House to go into detail about intelligence sources or organisations. There are very good reasons for that which have nothing to do with bureaucratic reticence. It must be obvious to anyone who gives the matter a little thought that if we reveal how much we gain from intelligence, let alone how we gained it, that would represent an immense advantage to our adversaries in their ability to thwart our methods of collection, to misinform us deliberately, and to exploit to the full those areas in their plans and capabilities with which they could judge we were not already conversant. There could hardly be a surer way of undermining the effectiveness of our armed forces and of succouring the Queen's enemies than by broadcasting the extent of our intelligence knowledge. I make no apology, therefore, for declining to enter into discussion about what we did or did not know about the Argentine military dispositions and capabilities or why we are not prepared to reveal certain facts.
Intelligence played a vital part in the Falklands conflict. It was a well-conducted operation with a fruitful two-way exchange between our headquarters and the task force. It was an essential element enabling both Ministers and military commanders to reach decisions. It most certainly saved British lives. We would do well to reflect on that fact. I know of no better justification for maintaining the secrecy which is the prerequisite for effective intelligence. We have a highly professional intelligence organisation which did a first-class job in the conflict.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in the House on 25 January, opening the debate on the Franks report,
We have to remember that anything we say on this subject is certain to be studied very closely by foreign Governments. We have therefore to be sure that nothing we say makes the tasks of our own security and intelligence people harder, or those of our adversaries easier."—[Official Report, 25 January 1983; Vol. 35, c. 805.]
That is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces have already made it clear that, in the public interest, they are not prepared to discuss the intelligence aspects of the Belgrano affair. The hon. Gentleman must not expect me to do otherwise just because he wishes to air his latest theory. It is no good his pouting. He knows the convention, and he knows, too, for all his protestation, that it would be wrong for me to depart from it.
The hon. Gentleman is convinced that the decision to torpedo the General Belgrano was taken deliberately to undercut moves to bring about a peaceful end to the crisis precipitated by the Argentine invasion of the Falklands. The initial act of aggression was theirs, not ours, although anyone reviewing the hon. Gentleman's stream of criticisms over the past months might be forgiven for thinking that he felt that it was us and not Argentina who made the first move. As I have said, there is no truth in the hon. Gentleman's assertions, and I shall therefore once again take him through the facts.
Our task force was operating with limited air cover thousands of miles from home. Although less powerful than the Royal Navy, the Argentine navy was still a force with which to be reckoned. It had the support of land-based aircraft. It undeniably had the potential to inflict serious losses. On 2 May there were signs that our ships and men were threatened by a pincer attack involving the cruiser General Belgrano and her escorts to the south and other Argentine warships to the north, among them the carrier 25 De Mayo.
The hon. Gentleman may speculate as much as he likes. All I shall say is that on 2 May there were signs that an attack was to be expected. The military appreciation was that the threat was serious. The Belgrano group was operating close to the total exclusion zone around the Falklands. The rules of engagement approved by Ministers prior to 2 May did not permit an attack outside the total exclusion zone. The task force commander, worried that HMS Conqueror might be unable to follow Belgrano over the shallow waters of the Burdwood bank, sought a change to the rules of engagement to permit an attack outside the zone. In view of the threat to the task force, this was agreed.
The Argentine Government had been warned on 23 April that
any approach on the part of Argentine warships, including submarines, naval auxiliaries or military aircraft which could amount to a threat to interfere with the mission of British forces in the south Atlantic will encounter the appropriate response".
Establishment of the zone did not give the Argentines licence to operate freely outside it if in so doing they threatened British forces; and they can have been in no doubt of this.
The loss of life resulting from the torpedoing was indeed tragic, as was all loss of life, Argentine as well as British. But the tragedy stemmed directly from Argentina's unprovoked aggression in seizing British territory by force of arms. The opportunity to withdraw under a peaceful settlement before the task force reached the area was not taken. The Argentine Government must bear that heavy responsibility. I assure the House that the military situation thoroughly justified the attack on the cruiser General Belgrano. We have nothing of which to be ashamed.
I hope the hon. Gentleman will be able to accept—much as it may go against the grain—that he is, not for the first time, utterly wrong.

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. The Minister has sat down.

International Monetary System

Mr. Bowen Wells: I raise this vital issue late at night, keeping out of bed hon. Members, staff of the House, my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary and your good self, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because without a satisfactory reform of the international monetary system the British economy cannot expand to provide the additional jobs that our unemployed so desperately need. Britain, as a trading nation, depends crucially on the health of the international trading community. I need not remind the House that we export about 30 per cent. of our gross domestic product, a much higher percentage than any other industrialised nation. Without an expansion in world trade, our only opportunity to expand domestic production is to obtain a greater share of a contracting and highly competitive market. Therefore, Britain is crucially dependent on a recovery and an expansion of world trade.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer can go on pursuing doggedly his domestic financial policies that encourage the establishment of new companies, encourage and reward our people for working hard, bring down inflation, stabilise prices and reduce interest rates, but those policies alone cannot bring employment or prosperity to our people. Another international element must be introduced.
If it is correct to state that without stable prices, low interest rates and sound predictable money we cannot expect to encourage investment in businesses in this country because we cannot be certain that we will get our money back or even whether we will make a profit or a loss, the same argument must apply internationally. It is certainly true for the many British companies which invest and trade overseas. An unpredictable change in exchange rates, overseas interest rates or low commodity prices can turn an efficient and modern investment in, say, sugar or a copper mine, into a massive loss from a predictable, comfortable profit so quickly that no one has any possibility of adjusting to the changes.
The result is that those with money are reluctant to invest because they simply cannot predict the return. This adds to the ever-increasing amount of cash that is sloshing around the world looking for a safe home, thus exacerbating the yo-yoing exchange and interest rates and producing great instability and volatility.
Both domestically and internationally, Britain needs a stable and predictable international monetary system. We certainly do not have it at the moment. I speak on the day when sterling has reached an historically low figure in its exchange value against the US dollar, when not many months ago it was at US $2·50.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: It was higher than that.

Mr. Wells: My hon. Friend tells me that it was higher than that.
What effect will this have on the Government's hard-won fight against inflation? The Prime Minister is loth to predict. It must have an effect on inflation in an upward direction in the not-too-distant future unless the trend reverses itself, which it might well do, because of the volatility of the current position. This is sheer chaos and lunacy.
When I talk to Treasury and Government officials and Ministers, they all look worried, dive for their statistics and conclude that nothing can be done because Britain cannot affect the issue by itself. That is true, but it is not an excuse for doing nothing. It is a man-made phenomenon and must be capable of solution by men determined to solve the problem.
I studied economics at university long enough to develop a very healthy scepticism about economic theory and planning. I am not a believer in any economic theory, knowing the fallacious assumptions upon which most of those theories are built. That is not to say that they are useless, but having looked at how the factors taken into account might vary in certain circumstances one realises that they should, like corporate plans of companies, be put in a drawer and forgotten until next year. I am not a Keynesian, a monetarist or a Friedmanite. We must deal with the world as it is.
Undoubtedly, one of the causes of the instability in our monetary system has been the degree to which inflation has been allowed to let rip and by Governments permitting budget deficits to develop of huge proportions.
Great credit must be given to the Government for controlling and disciplining the economy. As the exchange rate today demonstrates, this is not enough. I would not presume or pretend that I know the solution to the problem, but, unless we tackle it with the determination to solve it and in a belief that it can be solved, it never will be solved.
The Government, in their evidence to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, to whose interim report on international monetary arrangements I pay tribute, give the impression of regarding the hunt for a solution as being hopeless and beyond their physical and mental capacity. However, I was delighted to see on page 15 of the evidence taken on 14 June 1982 the following statement by the Treasury:
There must also be the general political will for reform if the resumption of a search for a new system is to be fruitful. This would seem to require a greater level of dissatisfaction with present arrangements and a clearer view of feasible improvements to them than is evident at the present time.
My object tonight is to make my contribution to the generation of that political will. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) did the same in the Christmas Adjournment debate. We must continue to raise this issue time and again until the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his Ministers get off their backsides and begin to try to lead the world into a better international monetary system. This is the one issue that is of vital and overriding importance to a solution not only of our problems, but of those of the Third world and the other international economies.
We now have the opportunity to do something, with the election of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the chairmanship of the interim committee of the International Monetary Fund. I congratulate him on that. He can now claim the prestige that attaches to a Chancellor who has succeeded in reducing inflation and controlling domestic public expenditure. He has now presided over a successful realignment of the currencies within the European monetary system. We must now encourage and beg him to inspire the establishment of an orderly international monetary system.
Before turning to how we might tackle the problem, I shall remind the House that although we will be talking


about money, trade and finance, we are really talking about people. We are talking about whether people will starve or live; whether, if they live, they will live a life that is pitifully stunted by poverty or a life in which they can fulfil some of their personal ambitions, living with dignity in this world and contributing to their families' welfare and that of mankind. After all, the decisions taken will affect the vital interests not only of Britain and the so-called developed world, but of the Third world, where the population is exploding. That population explosion alone will affect our monetary system and a new monetary system must be responsive to that population's needs. It offers an opportunity to the developed world to supply some of the needs of that population, but, mishandled, it also presents a deadly threat to the living standards and even the supply of that basic necessity, food, to our own people.
As the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, when addressing the first meeting of the Commonwealth Bretton Woods study group, said:
Economists, I find, are at their best when they recall that their discipline is about people and their lives, about countries and the world community.
I have said that I am not an economist and I cannot pretend to know the answers to such complex problems. However, I shall make some observations on the present situation and I shall ask some questions of my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary. I hope that he will not take refuge in platitudes or banality but will come out strongly with a statement of his own ideas and demonstrate his and the Government's determination to seek a settlement. His reply to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham on 23 December 1982 was a little unconvincing and lacked his characteristically trenchant and perspicacious style. He never answered the question that he was asked as to whether or not he favoured the convening of another Bretton Woods conference, as called for by Mr. Reagan in Frankfurt, or by the Prime Minister of New Zealand, Mr. Robert Muldoon—that well-known Socialist—who called for a "world economic conference."
I assume that it is accepted as common ground that the floating exchange rate system has failed to impose the necessary discipline on domestic economies and is therefore responsible in part for the inflationary policies pursued relentlessly by some countries, including Britain, has undermined the value of currencies and has led to competitive interest and exchange rates.
Instability has resulted in a contraction of world trade and the move towards protectionism has become irresistible to some, including many Members of the Opposition.
I hope that we have now concluded that the experiment of using special drawing rights as a reserve should be abandoned. Does my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary accept the analysis and critique of Paul Boreau in the Wincott memorial lecture that he gave on 21 October 1981? His devastating criticism of SDRs identified three major flaws. First, they are not independent of national currencies on which their value is based. If world currencies are mismanaged, SDRs will be mismanaged. They cannot be an independent barometer of domestic economic mismanagement or success and therefore cannot impose the necessary automatic disciplines. Two, SDRs are less attractive than the strongest component currency which underlies their value. Therefore, the strongest component currency becomes the reserve currency.
Three, the effect of issuing SDRs as outright gifts, with no conditions as to their use, has undermined the basis of IMF operations. The IMF has insisted always, as the price of additional reserves and credit, that conditions on discipline are imposed on the recipient, as with all other IMF loans and assistance. The Third world's argument, therefore, for the abolition of conditions on loans to it from the IMF becomes irresistible.
"Common Crisis", or "son of Brandt" of course calls for a major issue of SDRs. Presumably, those SDRs will be issued without conditions and Governments of the recipient countries will escape any necessity to change or improve their domestic economic policies.
Does my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary agree that gold should be reintroduced as a currency reserve to recreate the external disciplines on an economy and for restoring stability to exchange rates?

Mr. Frank Hooley: Gold? Churchill!

Mr. Wells: No, it is different from Churchill in the 1920s. Gold would be the ultimate reserve currency into which, under a multiple reserve currency system, any of the currencies could be converted by Governments alone. The rate at which conversion would take place would be flexible. It would take account of the expansion or contraction of world production, trade and investment. Such a system would reimpose a discipline on reserve currencies, such as the dollar and sterling, which have succumbed in the past to the temptation to run consistently huge budget deficits. The Americans would find it difficult to adjust.
Therefore, I should be glad to know whether my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary has any idea of how the Americans are thinking about these issues. My hon. Friend will recall that it was the agreements of Mr. White and Mr. Keynes which virtually brought about the Bretton Woods agreements; therefore, the American decision is vital important if there is to be a breakthrough. The difficulties would have to be sorted out at a second Bretton Woods conference for which President Reagan has clearly called.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: My hon. Friend makes the point about gold as the reserve currency. Surely, does he not accept that one of the problems that overtook the world in the 1920s was that gold was looked upon as the reserve currency? It stultified economic growth. If we were to have anything as a reserve currency, surely it would be oil certificates which would make at least growth certificates. Does my hon. Friend agree that one is not trying to stultify growth but to ensure that the Third world, which has little to offer except its poor, has a chance to expand? That can be upon the concessions and hope of the Western world only. I do not see how gold would be a genuine reserve currency, except for those who have it already.

Mr. Wells: My hon. Friend is right about the problem of gold in the 1920s and the 1930s. Even under the Bretton Woods arrangement, it was a difficult matter to deal with. During that period gold was fixed at a parity, as my hon. Friend knows, of $35 to the ounce. That was an inflexible and stultifying arrangement. Growth in the world did not produce the right amount of liquidity necessary for the development not only of the Third world but also of the developed world. In a return to any kind of gold standard or reference to gold, there is no doubt that we must avoid those rigidities.
In moving to floating exchange rates and SDRs, we have thrown out the baby with the bath water on the issue of gold. It is necessary to discuss a method of linking currencies to some kind of valuable asset. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) suggests oil. We have seen the volatility of oil prices. They have not been as volatile as gold in recent months but oil is nevertheless unlikely, because of its quantity, to be a satisfactory method. I am not advocating gold as the only solution. We could make a convertible currency into oil prices if we so chose. It has to be converted into something that is tangible and regarded as valuable and stable.
Mr. Regan, of the United States Treasury, has already called for a Bretton Woods conference. Will the British Treasury back such a conference and enthusiastically embrace the idea of promoting such a conference? If not in favour of a conference immediately, is it in favour of an exchange of ideas with a view to convening a conference before long?
It is clear that the current system of floating exchange rates and SDRs has failed to discipline and control the world's monetary system. A new one needs to be thought out and implemented immediately. Failure to do so will make it difficult if not impossible for the industrialised countries to conquer unemployment and the misery it brings. The growth of population, combined with further impoverishment of the Third world, will lead to starvation for millions of human beings. Will the Minister demonstrate tonight that he has the determination to exhibit the political will necessary to find an international solution to the problem? I am calling for the same determination and doggedness that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has demonstrated domestically to cure our own inflation and profligacy.
I am sure that the Treasury team can do it. I dare them and beg them to give a lead in seeking reform of the international monetary system which would bring order out of chaos, replace contraction of trade with expansion, and replace starvation with prosperity.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: I am sorry that I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Hertford and Stevenage (Mr. Wells). The hon. Gentleman asks for more flexibility. He must understand that the present rigidities of monetarism would be flexible by comparison with the greater rigidities of the gold standard. To replace one evil, witnessed over the past few years, with an even greater evil, would be to fly in the face of any experience that the Government might have acquired over the past few years.
The most important development that we might hope to see from the International Monetary Fund is the restoration of its position as the body that looks after these matters and is under the control of Governments, and therefore under the control of statesmen and politicians. The International Monetary Fund was devised to deal with just the kind of crisis with which we are confronted. The saddest aspect for those who had such hopes and expectations during its formation is that it is manifestly failing to deal with the greatest crisis seen since its inauguration.
The first priority of economic policy throughout the world should be the restoration of full employment. Even if unemployment has seriously deteriorated in recent years due to a continuing world-wide economic crisis, there is no reason to abandon full employment as the most important objective of international economic policy. On the contrary, in view of the clear need for that objective to be established throughout the world, many people envisaged the International Monetary Fund as the body to achieve that aim and its failure to do so has been its greatest failure.
Instead, the ideas pursued by the British Government have spread to most of the economies of the industrialised world. The savage rooting out of inflation that was begun in this country has now become part of the general philosophy of many other industrialised countries of the Western world where it is often regarded as the necessary pre-condition for improved employment. It is held that if inflation can be reduced unemployment will then be solved by some magic formula. We have seen that that is nonsense. As inflation has fallen in this country, unemployment has continued to rise. The same applies to other countries, for the same reasons. There is nothing in the reduction of inflation that leads automatically to increased employment.
The strict monetarist measures introduced first in this country and later elsewhere have led to the paralysis of economic dynamism and the erosion of growth potential. The Bank for International Settlements considered that there was almost a test bench experiment in this country, and it is clear that the experiment has failed. The same experiment was carried out in Chile and it failed in exactly the same way, just as so many anti-monetarists had predicted. Not only have we lost the high employment that we used to enjoy, but we have lost the growth potential that was part of the Western industrialised scene.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jock Bruce-Gardyne): Will the right hon. Gentleman date the so-called monetarist experiment more precisely? His right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) said when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer that no Government since the war had given greater priority to the observance of monetary guidelines than the Labour Government, in which the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) was also a Treasury Minister. If it was an experiment, therefore, it dates from well before the Conservatives came to office.

Mr. Sheldon: As the hon. Gentleman was an observer of these matters long before he became a Treasury Minister, he will know that the monetarist diversions of the Labour Government were a small matter compared with what has happened since. He will recall that growth levels were still considerable. Indeed, they were large by comparison with the negative growth that we have experienced since.
The major experiments in monetarism took place in Chile and in Britain. It took place in Chile, where the Chicago school thought that it would be carried out to the fullest extent possible, and it took place in Britain with the endorsement of bankers who saw it as the most important experiment to be carried out among the major industrialised countries.
Abrupt oil price changes added to the problems and had a major bearing on the western world's weak international


performance. The two oil price shocks produced wild swings in exchange rates and interest rates, which have become almost completely unpredictable. This has added to the general uncertainty, which has seriously encroached upon investment decisions in the industrialised countries.
The restoration of growth and the consequent smoothing of adjustment problems would contribute much to the improvement in trade relations and lessen the danger of the international financial crisis which many have foreseen.
We see throughout the industrialised world that unemployment is hitting hardest young people, especially school leavers, who cannot find a first job. Consequently, they are not able to integrate themselves into a Western industrial society. In Britain and elsewhere unemployment periods are becoming longer and longer and leading to deeper and deeper frustrations among the millions who are seeking jobs for the first time.
The developing countries are causing many of the current problems in the banking sector. This cannot be otherwise. As world demand diminishes, the ability of these countries to export their goods declines. As deflation increases, the interest that they have to pay on their loans increases also. We are throttling the developing countries by denying them the opportunity to increase their exports and asking even greater sums from them in interest payments on their already over-large loans. We are facing the developing countries with no possibility of escape. These countries, with the best will in the world and with the most efficient and effective Governments, which frequently they do not have, are not able to make anything like a restitution of their debts or interest charges.
Because of that, a lifeboat comes to the rescue, which doles out more and more money to compensate for the nonsensical international banking system which the industrialised world has created. The developing countries have been at fault on many occasions in the past, but that is not so on this occasion. The fault lies with the industrialised countries, which have pursued polices to their disadvantage and to that of other countries that rely upon them for sources of finance and as outlets for their exports.
The strict monetarist principles that have been implemented have done nothing but deepen the recession. However, one small sign of comfort that we see approaching is the recent softening of the attitude of the United States and the relaxing of its strong and strict monetarist position. Interest rates have decreased and this has increased the scope for reflation both in the United States and in Europe. However, the present level of real interest rates at about 5 per cent. is far too high for the restoration of steady recovery in the international economy.
In the past few days and weeks we have seen a weakening of the oil markets. We are oil exporters, so at least one element of comfort can be gained from the easing of the markets and inflationary pressures as the international economy weakens. It is important not to regard that as the automatic precursor to expansion, but we must make it so by distinct and clear policies.
We must not allow the experiment of one or two countries, regarded as the locomotive countries, to start off and not be followed by others. In the past, one or two countries have believed that the monetarist experiment was wrong and have tried to expand their economy in a modest way, but have not been followed by others. As a

result they have run into balance of payments difficulties. A co-ordinated expansion of all the major countries is essential. That is the IMF's task. No other body can do it. The IMF is led by politicians and statesmen determined not to sit back and watch those countries expand and be forced to retract the only policies that make sense. There must be an agreed expansion. Perhaps we shall have to wait until a greater degree of common sense strikes the people of such countries. In the meantime, we must argue and hope that realism will finally break through.
What do we require from the IMF? We require economic policies internationally co-ordinated according to the circumstances in the countries concerned. There must be a great deal of trust and confidence. That might not be realised and so we shall not be successful in overcoming the grave crisis. Those who come after us will not be grateful to us for missing an opportunity.
We also need a systematic intervention to foreign exchange markets by the central banks to get a more balance exchange rate. I am not a follower of any special method of achieving that, but there is scope and there should be the will to bring together some of the disparities in currencies. It cannot be right that the pound should be worth $2·45 one year and $1·45 two years later. That cannot make sense. There have been many changes, but it cannot make sense almost to halve the value of currency in such a brief period. If the IMF consisted of people with greater vision and understanding and a greater measure of agreement, such an absurdity could not exist.
It is also important to avoid defensive and protectionist measures. The IMF has a role to play. The resources of the financial institutions need to be further strengthened to assert the power of the combined forces of industrialised countries looking after their own interests and to bring the world crisis under control.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the need to avoid protectionism and protectionist barriers to trade. Can be assure the House that that statement is compatible with the policy documents that emanate from his party, calling for what is euphemistically described as managed trade?

Mr. Sheldon: The Minister knows full well that the Secretary of State for Trade has been negotiating with Japan on certain understandings. They are forms of selective controls of a type that we would continue. They must form part of any international situation that is under pressure.
The IMF should also be conducting negotiations between North and South. It has an obligation, not only to co-ordinate the industrialised economies but to attain a better relationship between those economies and the developing world. I mentioned earlier the need to ensure more world demand so that the raw materials and products of developing countries have an outlet, so that they are enabled to pay off their debts, and lower interest rates, which would reduce the interest on outstanding loans. Many countries are increasingly unable to pay the interest on their loans, let alone part of the capital. That cannot be right and it can only plunge the world into an even greater recession and, possibly, disaster.
Those are objectives which, at a time of peril, ought to be regarded as capable of being settled by participating countries making much greater use of the IMF as the means for resolving such difficulties. If this debate merely


shows the importance of the IMF and the present inadequate response of its member countries, it will have been worth while.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: This is an important debate. We often debate the problems of the Third world late in the night. The time is late here, but it is not half as late as it is for those who are unwilling victims of the system under which they live. I forget the poet, but I remember the couplet which runs:
Life without hope is like a seive,
Life without hope cannot live.
We talk of people who have died in wars and exercise our minds about those who died in the nuclear holocaust at Hiroshima all those years ago and regard it as a great evil. All death is an evil, but we do not often pause to think that, in every three minutes, more people die of starvation than died in that one great fireball in 1945. We cannot envisage that changing. That holocaust encourages people to sit at Greenham common, to rend their garments and to disturb the lives of others in a prosperous Western world.
The real problem is that what we call problems, sadness and unemployment are riches to the majority of the world that we only visit on holiday, as I recently went to Kenya, whether it be Africa or South America. One need only move outside the ramparts of the Western world to see the degradation and despair of those who shuffle round this world.
Our monetary problems are serious to us, and they disturb our way of life, but they do not cause us great despair. The problem is that, in the undeveloped world, as the population grows, the agony grows. In 1975, oil was $3 a barrel, but now it is claimed that, because the price is likely to go below $30 a barrel—still 10 times what it was then—it is a great tragedy and an unsettling influence. What are our problems? We live in a world of inflation without growth, while everyone else lives in a world of dreams without substance. Unless we recognise that, to have a peaceful world we need not rely only on the force of arms but on our willingness to share some of the treasures of our lives with the Third world, a much greater holocaust may yet come.
Of course, we must think of ourselves and we must recognise that we have been brought up to believe that, as the sun rises in the morning and sets at night, our standard of living will inexorably increase. But it will not, because in the Western world we must export and import. As I said in another debate in the House before Christmas, what we see as lower inflation can often mean starvation to the rest of the world. We export manufactured goods, but we must import commodities, and unless e pay a proper price for those commodities, which are often all the Third world has to offer, it can mean starvation to them. We must ask ourselves whether the saying,
Am I my brother's keeper?
is true, and it is easy—whether from the pulpit or in the House—to answer, "Yes, we are our brother's keeper". But when we give that answer, we must be willing to make sacrifices to ensure that our brother does not starve. It is difficult to have a unified approach.
There is an international crisis at present because of the price of oil, but bankers in the Western world have been willing to recycle huge sums of money that have been

rushed round the world and lent on a short-term basis for long-term projects. Whenever the world becomes nervous, they want the money back. Now, because nerves are fraught, bankers who have lent money that they do not own, from people who did not realise that they were lending it, want it back. We have heard what the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank can do, but they can only help to solve the crisis that envelops us all. I must insist that the world in which we live is prosperous beyond all dreams of reality for most of the world's population. Unless we are willing to say that we—not just the IMF or the World Bank—will recycle that money on a long-term basis, the world is doomed to a despair that we have not seen in this generation or any other generation for some hundreds of years. It is not a matter of passing the problems of the world on to the IMF or the World Bank. Their strength lies only in the resolve and the willingness of our Western world to make some sacrifice to ensure that this does not become a wretched despair.
The Government and the country have been willing to show that they are prepared to place resources in the control of the IMF and the World Bank. More help will be needed. Countries in South America and Africa have no hope of repaying the money that the Western and Arab worlds have lent them. If we insist on the recall of the money, all we do, like Samson, is to pull the temple of our lives down about us. We have to think carefully about where we stand, for we have all been profligate. The Arab countries were greedy and remorseless when they put the price of oil up from $3 to $34. We have been remorseless and foolish in lending money on a short-term basis for long-term projects.
If we have a hope at all, it is that we keep together and realise that the small sacrifices that we need to make will result in some hope and some financial security for our world. It is not, as T. S. Eliot says, that the world goes with a bang. It is much more likely to go with a whimper. It is not wars that will destroy. All history tells us that it is the natural folly of man that destroys the hopes ad futures of generations.
If we should concentrate on anything, it is not on the fears of nuclear wars or holocausts. It is the fear that we, out of greed, and without a sense of reality in the Western world, will see that other people starve. If anything should haunt any of us, it is the war to see that people may live. One may live in a prison that is not just behind bars. Any person who starves and who is without a hope of tomorrow is living in prison. That is why I tire and become sick of those who live in prosperity in this country and who keep on about war. The war that we face is to see that men and their families may live and eat. If one does not have food, cover and heat, that is oppression, not nuclear wars. Nuclear wars are not likely to happen, because we are all to self-interested in surviving.
While we worry about nuclear war, we should always remember that every three days more people die from starvation than would die in what I tire of hearing about—a nuclear holocaust. That is what the Western world should be thinking of and that is what the international monetary crisis means. How are we to hold the world together, in which we all live for so short a time?

Mr. Austin Mitchell: We have had an interesting contrast of views on the Conservative Benches.


The hon. Member for Hertford and Stevenage (Mr. Wells) told us that he was no economist, and then proceeded to demonstrate that fact at length, whereas the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) made a speech which contained noble sentiments, contrasting strangely with his advocacy of the Government's domestic policies, which to a large extent have caused the problems of the developing world which he so nobly lamented. Both points of view essentially defended the Government's economic policies, which have been largely instrumental in causing the depression in the developing world, about which both hon. Gentlemen were worried. No doubt the bedside version of the Sunday Telegraph will contain the Minister's summing up, in which he will have to hold the balance between the two viewpoints.
The hon. Member for Hertford and Stevenage harked back to the gold standard of the 1920s. What has happened in this country has indeed harked back to the economic policies that accompanied the gold standard at that time, particularly the return in 1925 to an overvaluation of the exchange rate, which in essence was the same as the policies of this Government—an over-valued exchange rate, which places the burden of becoming competitive again on industry particularly wages and workers, causing a domestic contraction, which spreads out to the rest of the world.
It is unreasonable to blame the International Monetary Fund for these problems. It is also unreasonable to place the blame on floating. Floating the exchange rates was a response to the particular problems that developed from the disequilibrium in the early 1970s. It was a natural response to that disequilibrium. Industry in this country can live with that situation. The real problems is not, and has not been, floating. The real problem is over-valuation of the exchange rate, caused by the fact that the exchange rate has been used as a central weapon in the Government's economic management. It has been used to discipline industry, causing a depression which has been worse than that of any other advanced industrial country.
Thanks to the use of the exchange rate as a means of discipline and the revival by this Government of the economic orthodoxies of the 1920s, the United Kingdom has led the advanced world into a depression. We have fallen deeper into that depression than any other country, because we have pursued the economics of Lincoln's Inn, instead of the economics of expansion, growth, or one world. This Government's policies are dictated by lawyers, not economists. They use depression as a discipline and then blame the IMF and international institutions and arrangements for the effects of those policies on the developing world.
It is quite unreasonable to blame the IMF in that way, because the IMF represents the views and the orthodoxies of the advanced world and imposes them on the developing countries, the newly industrialising countries. I know from my experience of the recent Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegation to Tanzania and Uganda that the IMF is regarded as "His Master's Voice", speaking for the orthodoxies of the advanced industrial countries, particularly those of the United States, which closely mirror those of our Government.
The real problem is not the IMF and its management of international liquidity. The real problem is the contraction of the developed economies. We in this country are responsible for starting that contraction and for having prolonged it further and deeper than any other

country. The Americans began to pursue the same policies and pursued them with perhaps an almost equal degree of insanity, but they then found that the policies were proving disastrous, not only for domestic industry, but for the developing world. It was partly because they were more politically sensitive, but also partly because they were more aware of their obligations to the developing world and the newly industrialising countries, that they began to reverse those policies last year with a huge expansion in the money supply and an increase in deficit financing to counter the depression. Our Government have persevered with their policies, congratulating themselves all the time on their courage and resolute approach to other people's jobs and the future of firms, even though they are inflicting enormous damage.
The International Monetary Fund has been deliberately held back from doing what it can and should do to expand liquidity in the developing and newly industrialising countries. It has not been provided until now with the resources to do the increasingly difficult and expensive job for which it was designed. Even now the increase in its resources is inadequate. Therefore, it was no wonder that the private banks, the commercial banks and the trading banks of the world began to step in to fill the gap created by the failure of the developed countries to provide finance for the IMF.
We can hardly blame the banks for stepping in to redress a failure which was the responsibility of the Governments of the advanced nations, such as ours. Because the banks stepped in to do what the IMF was no longer able to do, namely, recycle the Arab oil money, they kept the economies of the developing and newly industrialising countries going at a higher level that they would otherwise have been. In the main they financed expenditure which was fruitful and beneficial. It went mainly into investment and expansion. The effects of that washed back on to us. That expansion in the newly industrialising countries and in the less developed countries helped sustain activity here, so we got the benefit from it. Thus it is unreasonable to blame the banks for keeping those economies going during that crucial period.
That benefit was sustained until the massive contraction began in Western economies, and particularly in our economy, because we led the way into the contraction. Inevitably, that contraction had disastrous repercussions for the developing countries, because the prices of the primary products on which they depended to support their rising populations were depressed by the condition of the world economy and particularly of our economy.
In Tanzania and Uganda there were constant complaints that the prices of their coffee, tea, cotton, cloves and everything else were depressed by the way in which we ran our economy and particularly by the failure of the entire Western economy, including the American economy, to keep going at a time when it was vital that we maintained some expansion to sustain their economies. We were beginning to hold them back. We were responsible for the depression spreading to their economies.
So the burden was felt by our people, on whom depression was used as a means of social discipline and of keeping down wage demands because people were so scared of losing their jobs that they did not demand wage increases. The depression was spread much further out into the developing countries on whom we imposed the same discipline by depressing the prices of their primary produce and by cutting the amount of aid we were giving


to keep them going in the face of the difficulties. That was symptomised by the Prime Minister's view of aid as handouts. That was her view of what we were doing to help the developing countries. That attitude justified the cuts in aid that were supplementing and compounding the problems that we were causing those countries by the weakness of our demand for their primary produce. We hit them when they were least able to bear it.
In Tanzania and Uganda we learnt on that Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegation the consequences of our folly. We found that those countries' industries that depended on overseas exchange, which was crucial to keep them going, were gradually running down because the overseas exchange was not available. An east African tyre factory, for instance, had not produced a tyre since 16 October because the overseas exchange was not there to buy the rubber and the components for the tyres. All the workers were laid off. As a result, their purchasing power was no longer going out into the economy. There were foundries with three days' supply of coke to keep going. There were hospitals unable to buy drugs or the equipment to keep them going. Primary producers were unable to get their primary produce transported to the markets because the fuel was not there, because the economy could not purchase the fuel.
That is largely the fault of this country. It has followed from the depression that has been engendered by the Government and the backwash of that depression on to developing countries, yet, now we have the spectacle of the hon. Member for Hertford and Stevenage blaming the IMF for a situation which his Government have largely produced by contractionary and deflationary policies for our economy. That is what is happening in the developing world.
The IMF, in so far as it has any blame, is to blame only for reflecting the economic orthodoxies that have motivated our Government and, for a more limited period fortunately, the Government of the United States of America. The prescriptions that the IMF is imposing on those economies as a consequence of our measures are prescriptions of devaluation and placing the sacrifices of that devaluation on the workers to increase the purchasing power of the farmers and the rewards of the farmers to stimulate their activity. It is a prescription that some will accept because they are desperate—Uganda has accepted it. It is a prescription that others will resist because they have a greater concern for political stability in their country and the well-being of their people, as Tanzania is resisting it. However, it is a prescription that compounds the problem, because it heightens the economic difficulties that those countries face.
The only solution is a collective expansion of the world economy. It is not to blame the IMF. It is to expand the world economy together so that our demand for other countries' primary produce goes up and so that they are able to expand their economies with ours and with their expansion begin to purchase more of the manufactured goods with which we are so anxious to supply them.
We cannot run a world economy on the basis of Friedman for the developed countries and Keynes for the less developed countries. It is impossible to run it like that. We must expand together and recognise that we are one world and that our fate is dependent on theirs, just as they are dependent upon us. Our responsibility is not only to

our people and to provide jobs and well-being for the mass of working people in this country, but to expand our economy so that the benefits of the expansion wash overseas to those far poorer than ourselves who need that expansion more desperately than we do and whose standard of living and ability to support their rising population depend on our purchase of their products and therefore on the expansion of our economy.
Therefore, it is not only a question of institutions such as the IMF but a question of political will in this country and in the United States so that we can move together towards the only solution that will benefit those countries over the long term·a collective expansion of the world economy to benefit our people as well as theirs. In short, it is a question not only of institutions, but of our sense of responsibility towards a world for which we have long been responsible. We need to recognise our responsibilities, because of the disastrous effect of our contraction on the world.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jock Bruce-Gardyne): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stevenage (Mr. Wells) on initiating what has proved to be a wide-ranging debate. I dare to think that the debate has made up in quality what it has lacked in the convenience of the hour for hon. Members. It is not easy to pull together the threads and respond adequately to the wide range of contributions.
It would be fair to say that, if there has been a common theme, it is that of a common distaste for the system of floating exchange rates—or at least the way in which it has been operating. When we moved to that system in the early 1970s, I was not one of those who believed that it was some sort of secret elixir to enable us to achieve almost continuous growth. It was a fashionable view, but I did not subscribe to it. I suspect that, as my hon. Friend said, the system would hold in store steadily accelerating inflation. But having said that, I must confess that I have always believed that it is a great deal easier to slip the moorings of a system of controlled exchange rates, as we did at the beginning of the 1970s, than to put the boat back on to the pins.
There have been a number of suggestions from hon. Members about how we might seek to bring more order into the internal monetary system. My hon. Friend, slightly echoed by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), was enamoured of the idea of a new Bretton Woods. It has been said, perhaps not unfairly, that that demand resembles the attitude of someone clambering into a taxi without knowing his destination. A taxi may be a useful vehicle, but one needs to know where it is to take one. It is not entirely clear where those who call for a new Bretton Woods would wish to take the system.
The success of the original Bretton Woods, and the system established in the post-war world, depended essentially on the acceptance of the dollar as an international numeraire. The system worked while the monetary policies of the United States justified the tacit acceptance of the crucial reserve role of the dollar—that is, until the American Government chose to finance the Vietnam war by printing money. At that stage confidence in the dollar as a numeraire collapsed and with it,


effectively, the Bretton Woods system. There is no evidence of a generally acceptable international numeraire today.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stevenage argued the case for gold. I used to be a bit of a gold buff myself at one stage. I think that it came from living and working in France at a time when de Gaulle had returned and turned gold into the great certainty of the international system. I thought that the system had something to commend it. Then I returned to Britain and shortly thereafter, unfortunately, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) proceeded to dissipate Britain's substantial gold reserves. Ever since then I must admit that gold has seemed to lose some of its glitter.
We must recognise that the return to the certainties of the gold standard, such as they were—perhaps they were exaggerated—would distribute its benefits very haphazardly, tremendously to the advantage of France, South Africa and the Soviet Union, and tremendously to the disadvantage, as things stand at present, of countries such as the United Kingdom, which has never managed to repair the ravages of the gold content of its reserves perpetrated by the right hon. Gentleman in the 1960s. In any case, it must be said that there is no evidence of an international consensus leading to the acceptance of gold as the new basis of an international system.
The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne appeared to have no patience with the gold proposition—if I may put it that way—and argued for a policy of more extensive intervention. I was a little surprised to hear that. I should not have thought that our experience with intervention in recent years has been particularly encouraging. We have only recently had the example of France spending thousands of millions of dollars of mainly borrowed money in an attempt to sustain a particular position in the European exchange rate mechanism. In the end, as we have seen in the last few days, it has been punched off it again for the third time. The experience of Britain, Germany and France over the years shows that intervention on its own will not massively transform the movement of major currents of opinion in the international exchange rate system.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: What about interest rates?

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Clearly, substantial movements in interest rates of a differential nature can have an effect on the course of exchange rates. That is indisputable. But even now I would argue that other factors are liable to have a far greater significance. I should argue that in the past three or four years by far and away the biggest short-term influence on sterling exchange rates has been changing fashions in the view taken of the value of substantial oil reserves. Between 1979–80 it was regarded as the sort of ultimate jewel in the crown to have substantial oil reserves and sterling's international value reflected that assessment. Today, the international perception of the value of oil has changed dramatically. This has, obviously, had a substantial impact—I do not say that is the only one—on Britain's exchange rate.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: No one will doubt that the presence of oil and the much increased exploitation of oil, especially the export of oil, had its effect upon the exchange rate. In the period the hon. Gentleman is talking about, interest rates went up to 17 per cent.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Of course I accept that differential movements in interest rates can have an effect on exchange rate movements. As the right hon. Member knows very well, the reason for the rise in interest rates was the need to recover the grip on monetary policy which his right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) had let slip and relaxed in late 1978 in the hope that would win him an electoral bonanza—which, alas, from his point of view, it failed to do.
I suggest to the House that the capacity of individual Governments, even perhaps in concert, to achieve a significantly greater degree of exchange rate stability by taking thought together is somewhat limited. One of the factors which the right hon. Member for Aston-under-Lyne tended to underplay in his comments in this respect was the enormous importance of such factors as leads and lags within the operations of multinational companies. Those factors alone, as the right hon. Gentleman knows from his experience, can have a significant or even dramatic effect at different times on exchange rate parities, and even under a regime of exchange controls.
The Government accept that a return to greater exchange rate stability would be enormously desirable from the point of view of international trade and the recovery from the international recession. The extent to which that is in the gift of Governments should not be exaggerated.

Mr. Hooley: I would not say that it is within the gift of Governments, but while Governments refuse to take any serious control over the massive shunting of huge footloose sums of capital across the exchanges and abandon any attempt to control that, then, of course, they cannot control the exchange rates. That is the key factor.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: It is easy to exaggerate the extent to which these movements are in the control of Governments. I remember very well the moment when the Labour Government got into great trouble in 1976, and the right hon. Member for Leeds, East had to come hopping back from Heathrow. Mr. Len Murray made a statement, saying: "We have got to get a grip on these international speculators who are attacking and undermining our currency." One of the major movements, as all hon. Members knew at the time, was the decision of the Nigerian Government to withdraw its entire reserves from London, for reasons which the Conservative party well understood. What was Mr. Len Murray proposing we should do—send in the gunboats and seize the Nigerian reserves? The truth of the matter is that these capital movements are not by any means under the control of national Governments to the extent that is sometimes argued.
The great volatility of exchange rates, which reflected the existence of massive footloose capital funds in the late 1970s, was to a considerable extent a factor in a period of rapidly accelerating inflation. The other element, of course, was that as a result of the first oil shock, a few oil producers in the middle east had resources that they were unable to spend and which they were not prepared, for what seemed to them good and sufficient reason—not unconnected with the level of international inflation—to invest long term. That situation has, of course, changed considerably. Those massive surpluses have evaporated. We are returning to a period of much more stable prices internationally.
For that reason, I would be more optimistic, on balance, than some hon. Members about the likelihood of our moving towards a period of greater stability in international exchange rates. For the same reason, I am somewhat more optimistic than some hon. Members about the likelihood of our being able to build on the modest recovery in the world economy that we have already seen.
I agreed with the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne on one point, and that is why I picked him up on it. One of the great threats to that recovery is undoubtedly the pressures of protectionism. Therefore, I was particularly glad to hear the assurance that he has given the House. I hope that the national executive—or whatever that great body is called—will endorse the supposition that the Labour party shares our determination to resist all the calls for the erection of trade barriers, which would be disastrous for this country as a major trading nation. Therefore, I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman's reassurance and I hope that it will be endorsed by the whole of his Front Bench.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: One thing that we can heartily endorse is that a Labour Government will not use unemployment as a means of protectionism in the way that this Government have done. They have used unemployment as a means of cutting demand in the economy, especially for imports. As this Government have led the world economy into a depression—we went in harder, deeper and earlier than any other country—will they now set an example and, by expanding the market, lead the world economy out of it?

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: To some extent we are moving ahead of the international economy, and the evidence for that is already accumulating. However, I was amazed by the hon. Gentleman's impression of the significance of the British economy in international terms. He reminded me of when Lord Kahn came before the Public Expenditure Committee several years ago and explained that all world inflation was due to the activities of some Amsterdam burghers in the early 1950s. As the Duke of Wellington used to say,
If you believe that you will believe anything.
However, we witnessed a steadily expanding rate of inflation throughout the 1970s, which was bound

eventually to burst. It is essential that we should adjust and return to much more stable prices. We are moving in that direction. We must build on the progress that we have made.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stevenage asked about the Treasury's view of the American approach to such problems. It is similar to ours. The American Government also share our view about the crucial importance of the need to secure sufficient and effective adjustment policies in countries that have run into acute indebtedness, to manage the steady downward movement towards more stable prices, and to achieve a steady convergence of economic performance and policies, particularly by those countries whose currencies form the special drawing right about which my hon. Friend expressed such measured scepticism.
I agree with my hon. Friend that SDRs have hardly lived up to their author's expectations. Nevertheless, I believe that they have come to hold an acceptable place in international reserves particularly since they were concentrated on five main contributor currencies whose Governments, including ours, have an obligation in this context to pursue coherent and responsible financial and monetary policies.
In short, I tend to doubt whether there is a magic formula—be it gold, SDRs or what is loosely and rather meaninglessly described as a "new Bretton Woods"—which can take the place of the common pursuit of more stable prices and monetary and fiscal disciplines by sovereign Governments. Exchange rate volatility and high real rates of interest are hazards to international trade and industrial recovery. However, I suspect that they are the inescapable legacy of a period of high inflation.
As that period recedes and confidence in the value of domestic currencies revives, provided that Governments restrain their Budget deficits to levels which are compatible with domestic savings, which is crucial, as we see from the experience of the United States today, interest rates should moderate, the problems of sovereign debtor countries should become more manageable and exchange rate fluctuations should return within acceptable bounds. That is certainly the Government's objective and perception. I believe that it is today widely shared around the world.

Brandt Report

Mr. Frank Hooley: We are all in the same boat, and the South end of the boat is sinking. The North end is not too buoyant either. That is at the centre of the assessment by Brandt 2 of what is happening in the world at the moment. I shall quote more precisely from page 16 of the new Brandt document, which, throughout the debate, I shall refer to as Brandt 2. It says:
The world economy faces its fourth consecutive year of stagnation. It could well contract further. The great majority of the world's countries, North and South, are deliberately restraining activity … But they are mainly communicating to each other the ill effects of their policies.
We were warned of all that three years ago. We had the first document from the Brandt commission, entitled:
North-South: A Programme For Survival.
It proposed a wide range of measures, finance, aid, food, energy and institutional reform to bring the world's economy out of crisis with particular relation to the Third world.
The Government's response was set out in the Foreign Office memo in July 1980, and I quote a little of it:
The Government believe strongly in the merits of the present world economic system … open markets for trade and financial flows.
The Government soon began to demonstrate, and they have demonstrated further, their beliefs in what they thought aid should be by claiming that aid should be determined, not so much by the needs of the recipients as by
political, commercial and industrial considerations".—[Official Report, 20 February 1980; Vol. 979, c.464.
That was the considered opinion of the right hon. Member for Banbury (Sir N. Marten). Monetarism flourished at home and abroad and we see the consequences all around. There is mass unemployment—in the EC 11·5 million, the United States 12·5 million and in the OECD countries 30 million.
There has been industrial stagnation, a fall in living standards, the collapse of commodity prices, high interest rates and economic ruin for the poorest countries whose exports can no longer buy the imports that they need to survive. Brandt 1 suggested that a summit of world leadership might help. Cancun came and went and the opportunity to do something constructive was lost.
Then, last year, something happened that shook even the complacency of the North in relation to the terrible plight of the South. I refer to the debt crisis. The crisis of debts owed by Mexico, Brazil, Argentina and other countries such as Poland and Yugoslavia suddenly concentrated the mind of the North, which began to look more seriously at what was going wrong with the economic structure of the world and what was happening in the Third world countries, admittedly some of the bigger ones, such as Mexico and Brazil, which were getting into a position that threatened the whole banking structure around which the economies of the industrial world revolve.
Against that background, Brandt tried again. One of the features of Brandt 2 is that it recognises, as did Brandt 1, that the world has one great asset that did not exist in the 1930s. That is the immensely sophisticated machinery of international co-operation that has been built up over the past 40 years. We have the World Bank, the International Development Authority, the IMF, GATT, UNCTAD and

a whole range of technical agencies of the United Nations—FAO, UNDP, WHO, IMCO, UNEP and all the rest. Brandt asks that these should be used more vigorously with greater and more determined political will, vision and imagination. The institutions are there. The experience is there. They have been built over a long period, and countries are accustomed to dealing within the framework of these institutions. What is required is the political will and the vision to make them work and to adopt policies in concert and individually that carry the world out of the slump and recession and back on to a more reasonable path of economic growth with benefit alike to North and South.
Of the more specific proposals contained in Brandt 2, I start with the volume of aid. The commission reiterates the commitment to the 0·7 per cent. target which the United Nations laid down. It seems so long ago that it was set that I forget the date. Brandt 2 asks that aid should be doubled in real terms to the poorest countries. The commission suggests that there should be more bilateral programme lending. It condemns the use of aid simply to finance the exports of donor countries. In this respect, it is regrettable that the aid and trade provision within our own ODA budget has been expanding and used increasingly for the benefit of large and powerful British companies to subsidise their exports, not always—although I accept it is sometimes the case—with regard to real developmental needs of places where some of the exports were going.
Brandt 2 asks that we should waive all official debt of the poorest countries. In this respect, the United Kingdom has a reasonably good record. I fear, however, that the Government's record on the volume of aid is not remotely good enough. I am bound to draw attention to page 15 of Volume One of the White Paper "The Government's Expenditure Plans", Cmnd. 8789, which sets out, at constant 1981–82 prices, Government expenditure in a range of categories over the past seven years.
The Government's figures, published just before the Budget, show that at 1981–82 prices the volume of aid under the Labour Government was £1,015 million in 1977–78, £1,108 million in 1978–79, and £1,031 million in 1979–80, the transition year from Labour to Conservative Government. In the period for which the Government are directly responsible the figure fell to £983 million in 1980–81, £960 million in 1981–82 and £892 million in 1982–83. For 1983–84 a slight upturn to £936 million is projected, but with the proviso that most of the extra money will go to make good the appalling damage of the Falklands fiasco.
Between 1978–79, the last year of the Labour Government, and the current financial year, 1982–83, aid expenditure has fallen in real terms by £216 million or 19 per cent. If the Government are to take Brandt 2 more seriously than they took Brandt 1—assuming that they stay in office, which I think is unlikely—they will have to reverse the disastrous trend in the volume of aid. The Labour party is pledged to reverse that trend and will restore and indeed improve on the level of aid between 1977 and. 1979.

Mr. Christopher Brocklebank-Fowler: At what rate would a Labour Government propose to move towards achieving the 0·7 per cent. target? Is there a fixed period over which they would hope to achieve that?

Mr. Hooley: We should certainly aim to achieve it within the lifetime of the next Parliament. I say that from memory, but I will check it in the official Labour party document if necessary. Certainly we intend to pick up the pledge that we made shortly before leaving office, that under a Labour Government there would be sustained growth in real terms in the aid budget.
Brandt is scathing about spending on armaments and its impact on world development and poorer countries. The commission points out that in 1980 $450 billion was spent on armaments worldwide. By 1982 the figure had shot up to $650 billion—an incredible waste of resources. Brandt states categorically that
military expenditure is very much more a part of the world's economic problems that its solution
and that higher spending on weapons does not produce additional employment commensurate with the spending.
Here, too, the Government's record has little to commend it. Volume I of the White Paper, Cmnd. 8789, shows that £11·5 billion was spent on defence in the last year of the Labour Government. By 1983–84, according to the Government's own figures, the amount will have shot up to £14·2 billion—an increase in spending on armaments of £2,700 million or 23 per cent. in real terms in the Conservatives' period of office. A tiny fraction of that diverted to aid would at least maintain the level of aid programme that the Government inherited. Had they been even slightly more ambitious, they could have surpassed that level without difficulty. It is no use arguing that the resources were not there. They were there, but they were diverted and are still being diverted to massive expenditure on armaments, while the aid programme has been neglected. One of the lessons of Brandt 2 is that this is a wrong, misconceived and misbegotten use of resources.
The report expresses great anxiety that there should be a substantial replenishment of the IDA at the seventh replenishment. I congratulate the Government on their attitude to the sixth replenishment and compliment the right hon. Member for Banbury on his efforts. When the United States was being particularly obtuse, difficult and unco-operative, the Government were willing to make their own contribution and encourage other contributors to do likewise. I trust that that attitude will be maintained when the negotiations take place on the seventh replenishment, which will be vital to the poorest countries, because it is grant money and not a loan.
The report is concerned that the World Bank should increase substantially its available resources. It asks for an increase in the capital subscription and an increase in its borrowing power by doubling the existing gearing ratio. It is urging that instead of being able to borrow on a ratio of only 1:1 on its present capital it should be able to do so on a ratio of 2:1. I hope that the United Kingdom will support these proposals.
It is suggested also that the World Bank should give more money to structural lending—that is, lending not for particular projects but substantial sums that are geared to a country's economic structure and which, to some extent, overlap the IMF's functions. At present the bank's structural lending is about 10 per cent. of its total effort, and the Brandt report suggests that in future it should be 30 per cent.
It is interesting and coincidental that the hon. Member for Hertford and Stevenage (Mr. Wells) introduced a discussion on the IMF while not knowing that I was proposing to introduce a discussion on aid. In fact, the two

subjects overlap. Brandt 2 says a great deal about the necessity to enlarge the IMF's resources and give it greater capacity to deal with balance of payments problems, the debt problems of developing countries and the general world shortage of reserves and liquidity. We have had an hour and a half's discussion on exchange rates and I do not propose to go over that ground again, except to say that it seems strange that the Prime Minister talks so glibly about sound money when presiding over a Government who have seen the pound lurch in less than two years from $2·42 to the pound to $1·48. Indeed, the pound is still lurching.
The report identifies a gap of $85 billion between the resources that Third world countries are likely to be able to obtain as a necessary continuing requirement of their economies and what they will actually need. It identifies a number of resources, such as private lending, public lending, the World Bank and the IMF, but comes to the conclusion that when all these resources have been tapped there will remain a gap of $85 billion. That sum will be required if the economies of Third world countries are to function satisfactorily.
According to the report, a major solution to the problem would be a new allocation of special drawing rights designed to meet the poorest countries' needs. Brandt 2 states on page 57:
We are convinced that present circumstances demand the use of SDRs. The level must be very large and related to the extent of the declines in international liquidity and the level of deficits which must be financed if contractionary forces are to be reversed … Besides the quick provision of relief, an SDR allocation has other advantages at this time. SDRs have declined considerably as a proportion of non-gold reserves. An allocation of about SDR 10–12 billion per year for the next three years is required merely to restore this ratio to about the level it held after the first period of allocation which ended in 1972. A further advantage is that SDR allocations do not create repayment obligations, a particularly important feature.
Brandt suggests that the IMF quotas should be doubled. A recent agreement raises them by 50 per cent., but that is nowhere near enough. The general arrangement to borrow should be improved. Again, there has been some action recently. More gold sales should take place to provide the IMF with more resources.
Brandt emphasises the need to expand the compensatory financing facility, which has been a feature of IMF lending in the past few years, to countries which have run into serious balance of payments problems because of the fall in the value of exported commodities.
On the vexed question of conditionality—the conditions laid down by the IMF when lending to the poorer countries—Brandt is severely critical of the monetarist approach by the IMF and says that in future the IMF should look at its objectives in making and coming to agreements to assist poorer countries under the terms of its charter and that its objectives should not be just the curbing of inflation and dealing with balance of payments problems, but real economic growth, fuller employment and the equitable distribution of incomes. It says that the IMF should also take into account the need to adjust to a reasonable pace the rate of change and adjustment of economies.
The report discusses other matters such as trade. It comes out emphatically in favour of making the common fund an effective instrument for modifying fluctuations in the price of commodities. It suggests that there should be


much closer consultation between GATT and UNCTAD and calls for determined resistance to excessive protectionism.
On energy and food, the report asks for a new energy agency—repeating the proposition in Brandt 1 that an affiliate of the World Bank should be designed to deal with world energy problems—and calls for a dialogue between oil consumers and producers. The report states that measures should increase food security and production and the international reserve of food. That is strikingly and tragically opposite, in view of what has happened in Ethiopia.
The United Kingdom could not unilaterally operate some of the recommendations in the report. We could increase the volume and quality of our aid. We could cut out spending on armaments and sign the United Nations treaty on the law of the sea. We could reduce the ridiculous fees charged to overseas students. We could make available to developing countries our enormous expertise, particularly in relation to gas and oil exploration, coal, and solar and wind power. We have the capacity to do those things and there is no reason why the United Kingdom should not adopt such policies.
There is a clear case for using our influence in the IDA, on the resources of the World Bank and in the IMF. Brandt makes the important point that it is essential that like-minded countries, which are anxious to see progress and some effective dealing with the terrible problems of world poverty, get together to help push the dialogue forward so that we do not perpetually stand around waiting for the United States, West Germany or Japan to do something, but form a coalition for action.
The United Kingdom is especially well placed to take such an initiative as we have connections with Europe, the Commonwealth and north Africa. The forthcoming UNCTAD 6 meeting this year gives us a great opportunity, if we choose to take it, to push forward on some of the fronts that are ably and well set out in this important document.
I shall conclude with a quotation from the document, which is not written by the Brandt commission but is drawn from a statement by the leading American delegate at the original Bretton Woods conference, Mr. Harry Dexter White. He said:
Where modern diplomacy calls for swift and bold action, we engage in long drawn-out cautious negotiation; where we should talk in terms of billions of dollars, we think in terms of millions; where we should measure success by the generosity of the government that can best afford it, we measure it by the sharpness of the bargain driven; where we should be dealing with all-embracing economic, political and social problems, we discuss minor trade objectives, or small national advantages; … we must substitute, before it is too late, imagination for tradition; generosity for shrewdness; understanding for bargaining; toughness for caution; and wisdom for prejudice. We are rich—we should use more of our wealth in the interest of peace.
I entirely endorse those sentiments.

Mr. Christopher Brocklebank-Fowler: The House is indebted to the hon. Members for Hertford and Stevenage (Mr. Wells) and Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) for enabling us to debate these matters. It is an extraordinary aspect of our parliamentary system that it is the luck of the ballot in the late middle of a Thursday evening that decides that the House should

discuss an issue which is relevant to the international economy and the fortunes of developing countries and which directly affects problems in Britain.
I still look forward to the day when a Treasury Minister who has dealt with one half of the debate can spare the House the time to listen to another part in which it is more likely that we shall concentrate on trade, aid and foreign affairs. It is a remarkable inconvenience of our system that we never seem to get the right bunch of Ministers in the House at the same time to listen to the broad debate that is central to Britain's future and, some would say, the peace of the world.
In a foreword to a book called "EEC and the Third World: a Survey" Willy Brandt wrote as follows:
The world economic crisis is deepening and by the end of 1982 no major internationally co-ordinated effort was visible which might alleviate the problems besetting all countries. Recent suggestions for change and even promises contained in the communiques of summit meetings at Versailles and Cancun have not led to any concrete steps. National governments seem to become more and more concerned with internal difficulties and look for domestic solutions to their problems, particularly that of unemployment. They are not yet ready to accept the thesis that internationally co-ordinated action and greater support for the developing countries might provide the real way out of the crisis.
I agree with that, and I believe that the majority of those who have taken part in or listened to all or part of these two debates must agree with him. The world is experiencing the deepest slump for 50 years. The SDP believes that the United Kingdom should take the lead in calling for a rejection of the restrictive economic policies which, together with the oil crises, have driven the world into a slump. We must work towards a replacement of those policies by policies of joint expansion on a coordinated and co-operative basis to chart a course out of world recession.
During the past few years the world has squandered the remarkable achievements of the quarter century between 1948 and 1973, when greater prosperity and unity were achieved than had ever been seen before. The world needs imaginative and constructive statesmanship, yet Western leaders have concentrated on the problems of their countries with little regard to the repercussive attempts of their attempted remedies.
The foreword of the second Brandt report states:
Everybody should know what immense dangers the present international crisis holds, and that only a new relationship between industrialised countries and developing countries can help overcome this crisis. There is a clear common interest. This, of course, does not reduce the moral obligation of the rich to the poor, in particular towards those whose situations have become more desperate in the last few years.
The Government have not begun to recognise that we not only suffer the results of a world slump—on many occasions Government spokesmen have referred to how Britain has suffered—but that, because of their narrow vision, we have contributed substantially to that slump. The time has come when the United Kingdom should combine with her allies to reject devaluation and protectionism and work with them for the expansion of world trade ad a revival of growth in our domestic economies. Co-operative action should encourage countries to expand together to avoid disruptive balance of payments difficulties and the inflationary pressures that follow a collapsing exchange rate.
In the previous debate this matter was mentioned by hon. Members on both sides of the House. However, it was a major disappointment that the Economic Secretary


to the Treasury, although he recognised the importance of exchange rate stability and said how much this would contribute to an expansion of world trade and an improvement of international economic conditions generally, went on to show that the Government have no policy for solving the problem. We accept that no single national Government can solve the problem, but, more importantly, the lacuna in his argument was that he and the Government had no intention of making a contribution to a broader-based international attempt to introduce exchange rate stability. If that is the attitude of the Treasury, so soon before the Williamsburg summit, some of us can look forward to this summer with the regrets that all of us had following the lack of progress at the previous series of summits that climaxed at Cancun last year.
Co-ordinated expansion will not succeed unless exchange rates are stabilised. While fluctuations in exchange rates are the enemy of world trade and international investment, they also encourage a damaging protectionist reaction. Here again there are signs in part of the House that protectionism is not yet rejected. There are elements here who seek protection as if that in some way can secure jobs in this country. It is our view that the reverse is the case and that the United Kingdom and the world economy have much to gain from a world expansion in trade and much to fear from the creeping protectionism that has been a feature of too many of the international discussions that have taken place in past months.
Stabilisation of the exchange rates does not mean a return to Bretton Woods and fixed exchange rates, which are wholly impractical. We advocate that the United States, Japan, and members of the European monetary system—which should include the United Kingdom—should work together on a trilateral basis. Each bloc should define a target zone for its currency, within which the value should be free to vary. This new tripod between the three groups would form the basis of a new, stable but not rigid international monetary system to coordinate action for expansion, and should include finance for the developing world, in particular, a doubling of IMF quotas, to which the hon. Member for Heeley referred, and a major issue of SDRs angled in favour of the developing world. These actions should be accompanied by a major extension of co-finance and co-operation between the official institutions and private banks.
We advocate an expansion in world trade. Greater priority should be given to the management of commodity markets, encouraging the developing world to build up appropriate industries, working within the GATT to bring the more advanced countries into a more equal partnership, and wider agreement on a system of short-term safeguard measures in cases of market disruption. These should be accompanied by enlightened adjustment assistance for companies and industries in Britain faced by increasing competition from overseas.
Another element of Brandt 2, as the hon. Member for Heeley has called it, is aid. We advocate an increase in official aid to 0·7 per cent. of GNP by annual increases in real terms during the first five years of an SDP-Liberal alliance Government. We wish to improve the quality of aid, giving a higher priority to programme aid and making provision for more recurrent and local costs in those countries which have difficulty in mobilising local resources. We wish to concentrate our aid in a smaller

number of countries and stand ready to increase the ratio of finance between Government and voluntary agencies from 1:1 to 1:5. We believe that voluntary agencies play a particularly useful part in getting small quantities of aid, precisely targeted, to some of those who suffer in the poorest countries. There is much more flexibility in the pound to pound scheme, and we want to increase the capacity of the charities to spend a higher ratio of public money in that activity.
We also place a high priority on including technical cooperation components in project and programme aid. We wish to give greater support for development education in the United Kingdom and for overseas students studying here and in third countries.
We stand ready to increase our contribution to the multilateral agencies, although we wish to see improvements in the operations, particularly of the European development fund. These should be brought within the Community budget, and come under the scrutiny of the European Parliament. It is unsatisfactory that the British aid programme should be varied substantially by decisions about the level of the contribution to the EDF. We believe that the British contribution to the Community aid programme, through the budget, should go direct from the Treasury and not be subtracted from the ODA allocation, which is scrutinised by this House.
We propose actively to promote developmentally desirable investment in the Third world. Much is said about the shortage of soft loans and grants in the developing world, and about the problems of debt, to which reference has been made in this debate, but the greatest shortage in many developing countries is that of equity capital—particularly equity capital—which requires a foreign exchange element to enable a company established in the developing country to import either capital equipment or management and other technical skills to get the company going. We believe that there is a role here for a new agency to bring together export credit functions and the related long-term finance. In particular, we want to consider the possibility of making available soft funds through that new institution for feasibility studies.
Finally, the SDP endorse the principal recommendations of Brandt 2. We are greatly concerned, as I said at the outset, that, although these recommendations appear to be taken a little more seriously than happened with the first Brandt report, as yet there is no sign that the Government have taken on board the urgency of the current situation. I hope that the Minister, in replying to this debate, will assure us that he and his Department, the ODA and the Treasury, will set out at the Williamsburg summit to play a constructive role, a catalytic role of the kind mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, in trying to persuade our major partners in world affairs, the Commonwealth, the Community, and the United States of America of the importance of making a concerted effort to expand the world economy, not only in the interests of other countries, but of solving our own grave domestic economic problems, particularly unemployment, which is the cause of so much distress in this country.

Mr. Guy Barnett: The House will be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hooley (Mr. Heeley) for raising this subject. It was


appropriate that he should have the first word in the House about "Common Crisis", the second Brandt report, as it has been called. I have also heard it called the "Son of Brandt". It is appropriate, not least because of his interest in the subject and his fine record, but because of his chairmanship of the Overseas Development Sub-Committee.
This is a forerunner to the debate which has been promised and which I hope will take place as soon as possible after Easter on this document, "Common Crisis". The House will look forward to that debate. I am sure that the Government realise that it will be the beginning, not the end, of the matter. The Opposition expect a response in the form of a White Paper to the memorandum that we are now discussing. I asked the Minister for Overseas Development on Monday whether we would get such a response and he appeared to evade the question. I do not necessarily expect the right hon. Gentleman to answer it now, but I put it to him strongly that there are several reasons why the Government should produce a White paper in response to "Common Crisis".
The first reason why it must be done is that it is necessary to correct the appalling impression that was given by the memorandum which was issued in July 1980 in response to the first Brandt report. As the House may recall, at that time there was almost universal hostile comment in the press on that document.
The Sunday Times described it as follows:
Britain has voted for poverty, inflation and unemployment. That is the effect of the Foreign Office White Paper last week on the Brandt commission. It is one of the shoddiest documents ever produced by a British Government.
Those are strong words. The Government will want to expunge that record and redeem their reputation by producing a White Paper this time which is constructive and positive.
I have already welcomed the constructive remarks of the Foreign Secretary and of the Minister during Question Time about a month ago on "Common Crisis". We want that welcome response to be put into practical commitments by the Government. The Government's response to the first Brandt report contained statements which are on the record and therefore presumably regarded as Government policy or Government attitudes to international affairs which I should have thought they would now wish to correct.
For instance, do the Government still believe the following, which appeared in the 1980 memorandum:
The Government believe strongly in the merits of the present world economic system, with its wide reliance on open markets for trade and financial flows.
Or again:
The system has regularly and flexibly adapted to changing conditions and can be adapted further. This gives the best hope of overcoming present difficulties and providing a firm basis for future growth.
It goes on to say:
The present system offers an opportunity to all those engaged in economic activity to contribute towards soundly-based development.
Those remarks were written nearly three years ago. That is a cruel joke to the 4 million-odd people in this country who are unemployed and in view of the number of factories which are standing idle.
I have just returned from Kenya, a country with a massive trade deficit, a horrifying budget deficit, mounting unemployment and a growing army of landless, unemployed young people, lacking proper homes, schools

and other services, standing at the gates of the capital, Nairobi, waiting for something to be done by a Government who lack the resources to respond to their needs. The Government of Kenya pursue policies with which I think our Government would agree. I can only record my admiration for the courage with which they are taking certain decisions.
I am not denying for a moment that the British Government have acted positively and constructively towards Kenya by convening the donors conference. Certainly the Government of Kenya were extremely grateful for the initiatives that were taken by Britain. Nevertheless, the problem for Kenya and for dozens of other Third-world countries is so great that we ought to expect something more than merely a fine-sounding speech from the Foreign Secretary.
The second reason why something must be done is that we did have a response to Brandt 1. After all, Brandt 1 covered a fairly broad canvas. It was a generalised statement on a number of major interlocking world problems, with many short-term and long-tenn recommendations. Even though the document which the Government produced in response in 1980 was inadequate, at least they produced a document. ''Common Crisis" is specific and precise about the need for an emergency programme, because it is an emergency that we are facing. It spells out what it believes is needed for immediate action.
I want to ask the Minister a number of questions. He may not be able to answer them here and now, but they must be asked. Do the Government agree that the world liquidity resources are inadequate to deal with the volume of world economic activity and that the world economy must be related as a matter of extreme urgency? Does the Minister support, as my hon. Friend has already asked, the demand made in "Common Crisis" that IMF quotas must at least be doubled, that the gearing ratio of the World Bank must be increased and that special borrowing facilities must be set up to meet the needs of developing countries?
Do the Government agree that IMF conditionality must be reformed? Do they agree that the IMF, in framing its programme, must—to quote "Common Crisis"—
give greater weight to output, growth, employment and income-distribution considerations, relative to its past emphasis on the control of inflation and payments deficits, and to obey more fully its own new guidelines of 1979 which call for paying clue regard to the domestic, social and political objectives of member countries."?
Last week at Question Time we were told that the Government remained committed to the target of 0·7 per cent. of the GNP for official aid, but there was no deadline. When do the Government hope that that figure will be reached? "Common Crisis" makes it clear that we are facing an emergency, which requires emergency action. I emphasise that the emergency programme described at the end is specific on that point—the need for the target to be raised to about 0·7 per cent. for official development aid within five years. Shortly we shall need some sort of commitment on that specific point.
We need to know a little more than we shall get from the speech after the Easter recess about what the Government propose to do in relation to Williamsburg and the UNCTAD conference at Belgrade. The Government ought to put forward the proposition at Williamsburg that the OECD Governments should be prepared to negotiate with the Group of 77 on the basis of the emergency


programme contained in "Common Crisis". That would be a positive proposal which would be specific and relevant to the emergency that the world faces.
My hon. Friend rightly and properly drew attention to the remarks in "Common Crisis" about groups of like-minded countries. In the past, as "Common Crisis" points out, progress in the North-South dialogue has been hampered by the need to obtain global consensus. Backsliding by some countries or the adoption of rigid negotiating positions by others has a way of impeding any chance of such a consensus being reached. It also provides a convenient excuse for Governments who are being pressed by their electorate to do something constructive. Governments can always say, "Yes, in principle we are in favour of such and such a policy and have made our views absolutely clear, but unfortunately the American Government or some other Government blocked that particular proposal." It can provide a convenient scapegoat or excuse for doing little or nothing.
When we had a debate on Brandt 1 in 1980, I proposed from the Back Benches that the Commonwealth was an association through which something practical and useful could be done. What has already been suggested is close association with countries of the European continent. Relationships with both the EC and the Commonwealth ought to provide us with opportunities to take important initiatives on the world stage in relation to the ideas that "Common Crisis" puts forward, by groups of like-minded countries working together.
I wish to speak about the Commonwealth, because important initiatives have been taken. An important document has been issued by the Commonwealth Secretariat entitled "North-South Dialogue: Making it Work". If the Minister has not read the document, I hope that he will do so. He is nodding his head. I am delighted. It is an important initiative highly relevant to the problems of the ill-fated global negotiations.
There may be ways in which small groups of countries from both North and South can co-operate. For example, those countries already involved in the aid programme for Kenya—Germany, Sweden, Britain and the Netherlands are the main donors—working in concert with the World Bank and with the co-operation of the Kenya Government might find ways to assist that country on the road to economic strength and health. We are seeking such initiatives because global negotiations take a long time to be successful and we are facing an emergency. Such opportunities demand imagination and a certain amount of courage to be carried through. There are other countries in a far worse state than Kenya—for example, Tanzania. Positive initiatives need to be taken with the Governments of such countries to see what can be done through aid and trade and other methods to enable them to escape the appalling crisis that now faces them.
I put forward that idea, not as an alternative to global negotiations but as an important immediate serious step that could be taken by Governments of countries in the North. It would have two purposes: first, the immediate purpose of assisting those countries; and, secondly, such experiments might be helpful in the global negotiations. They will demonstrate what can be done and will inform people about what will or will not work. Other Governments might then try similar experiments.
Many of us were depressed by the Budget statement last week. The Government must rid themselves of the view put forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the deepest economic recession since the war was caused by the 1979–80 oil price rise. I do not believe that that was the case. The recession was surely triggered by the decision of many Governments in the North, including the British Government, to adopt restrictive economic policies at the same time as the rise in the price of oil. There must be a fundamental change in those policies and attitudes for the sake of Britain and other countries in the North and for countries such as Kenya and many others in the South. We need steady and sustained reflation. If the Government and the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot agree with such policies, we shall have to find another Government and another Chancellor of the Exchequer who are prepared to do just that.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) on raising this topic. As has been said, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has said that he is sympathetic to the proposal for a proper debate on the second Brandt report. That was clearly not possible before the Easter recess and it is helpful that the hon. Member for Heeley has given us this opportunity to comment on that report.
All hon. Members will want to congratulate the members of the Brandt commission, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath). We are in their debt because they have made an outstanding contribution towards increasing the interest throughout the world in this vital topic. The very stature of the persons on the commission and the enormous amount of work both in the first and second reports has heightened the level of the debate and has had a positive effect which can only be for the benefit of the issues that they wish to emphasise.
As the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) fairly commented, the Government have welcomed "Common Crisis" and recognised it as an important document which is a major contribution to the issue. It is a major document not so much because of its analysis as because it makes a series of practical proposals. It puts forward detailed ideas in the form of specific recommendations. It is also a timely document because it has been published—I am sure this is no coincidence—well in time for the Williamsburg summit, the UNCTAD conference at Belgrade and various other international conferences.
The Government happily accept the central theme of the second Brandt report, that the world is interdependent. Clearly, the interdependence between the Western world and the Third world is significant and obvious, particularly at this time of international recession. The House is often obsessed with the consequences of the recession to our economy but it is not a matter of controversy to say that the recession has undoubtedly had far worse effects on the poorest countries of the world than in western Europe and North America which clearly have a greater capability to deal with such problems and to respond to them without the enormously damaging consequences to their populations compared with the countries of Africa and Asia.
For the Third world the recession has undoubtedly been seriously affected by the substantial fall in commodity prices co-existing with the substantial increase in oil


prices. We have seen the wild fluctuations in the exchange and interest rates that have also damaged them and, as has been mentioned by several hon. Members, we have seen the serious problems of debt that have mounted up in an unprecedented way in many Third world countries.
We in the United Kingdom can recognise and understand the problems of the Third world far more easily than many other Western countries. I say that, first, because as a major trading country we do a substantial amount of trade with the Third world. Fully a quarter of our trade is not with the developed world but with the developing countries of the Third world. Clearly, therefore, the effects of the recession on those countries have a consequence for our economy and trade.
Secondly, our banks and financial institutions, which are some of the most sophisticated around the world, are heavily involved in one way or another with the various aspects of development and trade with many of the Third world countries. We therefore have a personal involvement, experience and interest in those difficulties being resolved as easily as possible.
Finally, as the hon. Member for Greenwich rightly reminded the House, our links with the Commonwealth clearly give Britain not only an historical association but a continuing sympathy with and interest in the countries that have long been associated with us, and that are among those most seriously affected by problems associated with the recession.
The hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler) called for a reflation of the world economy as a major means of helping to resolve the problem. If he could confine himself to non-inflationary growth, he would certainly speak for the whole House. The Government would equally share that view. The major objective must be to seek a means of ensuring non-inflationary growth, as that is in the interests of the world as a whole. Inflation not only causes major damage to developed countries but can equally damage the economies of the developing countries of the Third world. There are several ingredients to non-inflationary growth.
I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Heeley make the specific point—in a sense he was contradicting his hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich—that the important point was to improve the existing financial institutions. Perhaps that was an appropriate answer to the concern of the hon. Member for Greenwich when he asked me whether the Government still believed that the existing international institutions could form the basis for the improvements that he sought.
The Government believed at the time of the first Brandt memorandum, and still believe—as does, apparently, the hon. Member for Heeley—that the existing financial institutions can be used for that purpose, albeit their efficiency and impact must be improved. Nevertheless, it is improvement we seek and not their replacement by some major new institutions of the type which have been contemplated in various areas.
Another major objective must be to manage the substantial debt problems of particular Third world countries in an orderly fashion and in a way that recognises the serious difficulties facing those countries.
I agree with the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West that it is essential to preserve the open trading system and that any moves towards protectionism, as have been mooted in various quarters of the House as well as elsewhere, would do enormous damage to the world

economy as a whole and would certainly guarantee that the existing recession would be prolonged far longer than would otherwise be necessary. An interest has also been shown in the stability of exchange and interest rates.
I come to the specific proposals and recommendations of the second Brandt report. The hon. Member for Greenwich read out a list of questions that he wished to put to the Government. Other hon. Members implied or gave the impression that while the Government had made various general noises of support for the second Brandt report, they were anxious to see whether those statements of support were going to be matched by support that mattered and which resulted in the implementation of many of the recommendations. I believe that a considerable number of the recommendations of the Brandt report have either been implemented by the world community or have been implemented in a way that the United Kingdom can carry out. I shall give some examples of that which I think are important.
Reference was made to the need to increase the available resources of the International Monetary Fund. As the House should know, the recent meeting of the interim committee of the IMF under the chairmanship of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer resulted in a substantial increase in the available resources of the IMF. In addition it resulted in a decision to bring forward the date of the increase in the quotas by a full two years, thereby recognising the urgency, and realising that the original proposed dated 1985 could not be maintained if one accepted the sense of urgency which hon. Members have noted.
Reference has been made to special drawing rights. The interim committee of the IMF accepted the need to review the possibility of a further allocation of special drawing rights. That is something that the Government will examine with an open mind.
The hon. Members for Heeley and Norfolk, North-West referred to questions of conditionality and the assistance that the IMF can give. This is an area where a balance has to be set. We must ensure that conditions which are laid down by the IMF are relevant to the problems of the individual countries, and will, if implemented and accepted by them, result in an improvement in their economies and not a continuation of the problem that brought the IMF in in the first place. Clearly, that is necessary. At the same time I accept, as do the Government, that the IMF must also recognise the social and political realities in individual countries, and that there are inevitable constraints that vary from country to country on the extent to which they can, even with the best will in the world, respond to the conditions laid down by the IMF. Of course, it must be recognised that social and political restraints may inevitably act on the Government in question.
Ultimately, it is a question of the good faith of the recipient Government. If it is seen that they are seeking to do their best to put their house in order with the assistance of the IMF, it is only right and proper that the IMF should recognise that in some of the conditions that it insists on. That is the appropriate balance. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Heeley for the way in which he congratulated the Government on their response to the need to make a full contribution to the sixth replenishment of the International Development Authority. As the hon. Gentleman graciously recognised, the Government accept


the enormous importance of the IDA. Our view is that the American Government and Congress should recognise the similar response that is required. That is important.
Considerable mention was made of the level of aid to Third world countries. The Brandt report "Common Crisis" recommended something to which hon. Members did not pay sufficient attention—the desirable need for private investment as well as public flows of funds to developing countries.

Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: On the contrary, I made that point in my speech. I had hoped that the Under-Secretary would elaborate a little on the general sympathy expressed for private investment by the Foreign Secretary in a major speech to the Royal Commonwealth Society. The House would like to know what specific policies the Government have in mind to promote private investment in developing countries.

Mr. Rifkind: I have made the unforgivable mistake of lumping the hon. Gentleman in with other Opposition Members. The hon. Gentleman is quite right, and I accept that he made that reference.
However, private investment is certainly recognised by the Brandt report as being of equal and substantial importance to developing countries. Indeed, the combined public and private flows of financial resources to the Third world from the United Kingdom add up to a total of about £4,980 million, which represents 2 per cent. of our gross national product, which is in turn double the United Nation's target of 1 per cent. Perhaps the hon. Member for Heeley will concede that the present British position represents double the United Nation's target, and that is something in which we can all take great pride and satisfaction.

Mr. Hooley: I have asked the Treasury once or twice where the outflow of investment has gone since the abandoning of exchange controls. It has repeatedly told me that it does not know. How can the Under-Secretary be so confident that all that private investment is going to the poorest developing countries? The Treasury said that it did not know where it went.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman has restricted his question to the poorest developing countries, and I am not in a position now to say how much goes to each country. However, the figures I have mentioned reflect the flows of public and private financial resources from the United Kingdom to the developing countries as a whole. That is in line with the proposals and recommendations in the Brandt report in favour of a United Nations target of 1 per cent. The United Kingdom has more than matched that by almost double the amount.
It is worth remembering that although we, like previous Governments, have not met the United Nations' 0·7 per cent. target, the figure in 1981 of 0·44 per cent. of gross national product compares with the average for the development assistance committee countries of OECD of 0·35 per cent. Therefore, we can take some satisfaction in that figure. I accept that the target remains unfulfilled. Opposition Members find it easier to give commitments when in opposition than they were able to implement when they were in government.
I move on to debt, which was identified by the Brandt memorandum. Perhaps to a better extent than most people

expected, both the IMF and the Bank for International Settlements have responded and co-ordinated their efforts well, as have central and commercial banks, in seeking to assist many of the countries that have debt problems. There was serious doubt about 18 months ago whether that would be within their capabilities. In fact, the world has coped considerably better than many expected in seeking to assist those countries with major debt problems. The financial packages provided for Brazil, Mexico and the Sudan, as well as a number of other countries, have been a major achievement.
Free trade, to which the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West referred, is essential and at the recent GATT ministerial meeting the Government supported fully the efforts being made to ensure the continuation as far as possible of an open trading system.
In other aspects of trade we have also recognised and accepted the importance of some of the Brandt memorandum recommendations. For example, we have ratified the common fund on commodities and encouraged other countries to do so. We are participating at present in no fewer than six commodity agreements. We have contributed to the STABEX fund of the European Community and to the IMF's compensatory financing facility.
The hon. Member for Heeley referred to an interesting and important report produced by a Commonwealth study group. Its recommendations, which I have read, are similar in many respects to those of the Brandt memorandum. If I remember correctly, the Brandt memorandum quotes the recommendations of that Commonwealth study group with favour.
I believe that a number of the proposals are important—for example, the advice to developing countries to try to think in terms of single-issue conferences; to try to operate in smaller groups rather than be attracted to full plenary conferences, which look grand but rarely achieve what their aspirants hope they will; and to try to avoid the sterile communiques which may look good on paper but produce little practical benefit.
The United Kingdom will adopt, as has been requested, a positive attitude at UNCTAD, Williamsburg and the OECD ministerial meeting. We shall seek to build in other ways upon the practical implementation of Brandt to which I have referred.
I shall make a point that has not been made during the debate. We have had a number of references to the North-South dialogue. As the Brandt memorandum implies, and has been said more explicitly by others, in many respects the North-South dialogue is not that; it is a West-South dialogue. There are many countries, the Socialist countries, the Soviet Union and eastern Europe which, by world standards, are developed and wealthy, and yet make very little contribution, and for all practical purposes play no part in assisting Third world problems except by the provision of armaments, as the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West pointed out, and yet continually mouth the language of assistance to Third world countries and the end of exploitation but do not match their words with deeds.
I understand that, during the current year for example, the Soviet Union will be a net beneficiary from Third world countries. It will receive more from the repayment of previous loans than it will be paying out. The Brandt memorandum is correct to point out that the Soviet Union and the Socialist countries of eastern Europe have a


contribution to make which, to use the euphemistic words of the Brandt memorandum has been "somewhat modest" until now. That puts it mildly.
I hope that the House understands that the Government do not welcome "Common Crisis" with grand statements of support, but that already in a number of important ways some of the recommendations have either been implemented by the United Kingdom as part of the international community or by acting in its own right as a Government required to take decisions on specific matters. We shall continue to look upon the report as an extremely important contribution to the development of policies assisting the Third world. It will be of value during the current year at various international conferences. In that spirit, I welcome this debate.

Manufacturing Industry (Government Assistance)

Mr. Bob Cryer: I am pleased to have this opportunity to debate manufacturing industry at a time when the Labour party has won Darlington by a majority of 2,412. The result establishes Labour as the party that will revive manufacturing industry and reflects the real displeasure and disillusion in Darlington with the wrecking tactics of the Government. Manufacturing industry is crucial to the future of the nation. It is the area where the ability of our people can shape and develop materials to provide benefit for the rest of the nation and other countries.
Manufacturing industry is being devastated to an extent that this country has not known in its history. The glib statistics that the Minister will trot out about some upward move in production pale into insignificance when one assesses the amount of devastation that the policies of the Government have achieved in our manufacturing industry. It is not just industry. We are not talking about some abstract concept in an isolated Mother of Parliaments. This issue is about people. I have received in my mail, like, I suppose, many hon. Members, an extract from The Sunday Post of 20 March 1983. That newspaper apparently wishes to ban glue sniffing, but I want also to ban the circumstances that cause some youngsters to turn to glue sniffing as a way of passing the time. A mother contacted The Sunday Post saying that when her son had left school to work for an engineering firm she had encouraged him to study to better himself. According to the newspaper—
He went to night school. He studied at home. But two years ago, when he was just out of his teens, his world crashed. His firm was hard hit by the recession. Andrew's job was one of dozens that disappeared. He spent weeks hunting in vain for a new job. As the weeks of dole dragged on, Andrew became more depressed. His mother noticed he was becoming moody and sometimes even aggressive.
The article adds:
He was found lying in the street, not far from home, in a stupor. His personality has changed completely in the two years since he became addicted. Once he became so aggressive his mother had to call the police.
His mother claims that Andrew is addicted to glue sniffing, that it is a slow poison and that it is killing him. The headline is "Doomed to die." That is a sad symptom of the effects of the Government's policy. The Government will claim that no case can be made on that basis. It is, however, significant that this youngster was made redundant from an engineering firm.
I was brought up in an engineering family. My father, I am proud to say, was a machine tool fitter. I have always admired engineering and hold it above virtually any other occupation. It is the key to the success of a nation. My father helped to build the machines that made the machines. There is not a refrigerator, a gas oven, a vacuum, a television set, a carpet or a wallpaper that is not produced by machines.
The machine tools created in our engineering factories create the machines that produce the background to our community. The creation of this place depended on machines to produce the woodwork, the seats, the stone cutting the whole building. Yet the Government's policies have made inroads into manufacturing industry so deep


that one wonders whether it can ever regain the important position that it hold before the Government came to power.
I shall give a few statistics relating to the decline before saying what I believe should be done about it. The Government argue that there was a sort of blur in the past and that although it is now a nastier blur the decline had been taking place all along. That is not true. Taking the index of industrial production in 1975 as 100, manufacturing output was 101·4 in 1976, 103 in 1977, 104 in 1978 and 104·3 in 1979, so there was actually an increase in those years. I shall concentrate on machine tools and textiles. For the latter, there was a slight diminution from 102·8 in 1976 to 96 in 1979.
The fall in the index of industrial production between 1979 and 1982 is remarkable—a drop from 104·5 to 88·3. The Minister may argue that the January figure this year showed a slight improvement of 2·6 per cent. over the last quarter of 1982—an increase from 87·2 to 89·8—but we need an increase of 14·5 to get back to the position that the Government inherited when they came to office. In those circumstances, any slight variation is, as the Chancellor would say, no more than bumping along the bottom.
The number of people employed in manufacturing industry as a whole decreased slightly between 1978 and 1979. The Government clutch at that straw to claim that they are trying vainly to grapple with trends that the Labour Government already faced, so there is little difference between the two periods of Government. Between December 1978 and December 1979 the number of people employed in manufacturing industry fell from 7,130,000 to 6,992,000—a drop of 138,000. Between 1979 and 1982, however, the number declined from 6,992,000 to 5,487,000—a drop of 1,505,000 in three years in what is a crucial potential growth area if we are to use the ability of our people to create and develop products and not become just a nation of assemblers. In textiles, the deline was from 417,000 in 1979 to 291,000 in 1982. In metal working machine tools, the difference between December 1978 and December 1979 was from 65,100 to 65,300, a slight increase of 200. Between 1979 and 1982 there was a decline from 65,300 to 46,100, more than 19,000 in three years. That is a massive decrease, and it and others are entirely the responsibility of Government policy.
In the woollen and worsted sector, which especially affects the west riding of Yorkshire, the decline was from 68,700 in 1979 to 46,400. Between 1978 and 1979 there was a decline of 6,700, but between 1979 and 1982 there was a decline in employment of 22,300. It is no wonder that the people of Darlington declined to support a Government who have so readily and eagerly put people on the dole, especially in manufacturing industry, which is so important to the future of our nation.
I shall dwell on how this affects my constituency of Keighley, where machine tools and textiles are two crucial areas of employment. Between May 1979 and December 1982 there were 1,019 redundancies in textiles, 381 redundancies in machine tool engineering and 634 redundancies in mechanical engineering. The figures were given in a parliamentary answer of 8 February. Many of

those made redundant were skilled people, many of them with years of training and experience. They were cast aside, and they are no longer able to obtain an opportunity.
I was talking to a school caretaker who is employed in the local authority sector, which is much loathed by the Government. It is the sector in which they are trying to sack people. He was an engineer and he was lucky enough to get another job after four applications and after going on a school caretaker's course that was run by the local authority. He had left engineering, a skilled area, because, as he said, he could "see the writing on the wall". All that training and experience was thrown to one side. Fortunately, the local authority still needs school caretakers and so he has a job.
When the Prime Minister visited Keighley there was the largest demonstration that she encountered during her visit to west Yorkshire. She visited Peter Black Ltd. No doubt the firm put out the usual red carpet to meet the black Jaguar, well away from those who work or to be more accurate, do not work in the town. She visited the factory because it was one of the few that was not afflicted by short-time working.
I shall recite a list of companies that are so afflicted. Dean, Smith and Grace makes the best centre lathes in the United Kingdom—the firm is on short-time working. Landis Land produces crankshaft grinders. Cars throughout the world have crankshafts that have almost certainly been ground on Landis Land or Keighley Grinding machines. They have been experiencing short-time working. The Minister might trot out the usual argument that we must be more competitive and increase productivity, but the work force of Keighley is skilled, diligent and extremely co-operative in all working practices, especially in textiles. It has not helped to have such a good record, because in October 1982 about 2,000 people had been unemployed for 26 weeks, 801 for between 26 weeks and 52 weeks, 391 between 52 weeks and 78 weeks, 265 over 78 weeks and up to 104 weeks, and more than 500 for over two years.
A town such as Keighley, which depends upon manufacturing, was not in the same position when Labour was in power. In January 1979 unemployment was 5·1 per cent. and it dropped to 4·5 per cent. by May of that year when the general election was held. The Conservatives tried to make out that the unemployment level was much higher. They claimed that it was almost 8 per cent. According to the Government's statistics, the unemployment rate is now over 14 per cent. That is another effect of Government policies on manufacturing industry.
I represent a low wage area. The Yorkshire and Humberside county councils association states in its 1983 regional strategy review
Unemployment is above the national and is still rising rapidly. Household incomes are the lowest in Britain. Added to this are serious problems, including industrial environment, dereliction, health, a deteriorating housing stock and rural isolation.
The review was compiled by four county councils, including one with a majority of Tories and independents. It is not, therefore, the mouthpiece of an anti-Government organisation.
On 22 March, the local paper, the Telegraph and Argus, carried the following:
Easter dole nightmare
Almost every Easter school-leaver in Keighley will go straight on the dole. Fifty-six leave school on Friday and only three have jobs. A handful of lucky ones may find a place on the


Government's new youth training scheme. After revealing the shock figures, area careers officer, Mr. John Wood, made a plea to local employers:
'Come forward with vacancies for young people, particularly with unskilled and semi-skilled work.
That is a reflection of Government policy on manufacturing industry. A plea for unskilled and semiskilled work is an illustration of the decline in the opportunities to apply our people's skills and abilities.
Our manufacturing industry faces massive import penetration in metal-working, for example in cars and commercial vehicles. New vehicle registrations are running at about 50 per cent. a year. That means that the need for skills possessed by engineering designers, and tool fitters who make dies to stamp out car bodies is declining. Engine development is now almost completely centred on British Leyland. The need for tyre design and manufacture has also declined.
Between 1972 and 1982 motor vehicle production in the United Kingdom declined by about 1 million units. The lowest level of car production here since 1957 occurred in 1982. According to the British Textile Confederation, there is a 60 per cent. import penetration of the fabric sector of the textile industry. In some areas, such as the Lancashire cotton sector, import penetration is as high as 80 per cent. Therefore, import penetration is making a severe impact on our manufacturing.
As I have given the background, I shall outline what Government assistance I believe manufacturing industry needs. By and large, it has faced considerable Government hostility. British manufacturing deserves and needs the same type of treatment from the Government as they give to farmers. The Government should give financial support to industry where it is needed. They will argue that that is simply throwing money at the problem and that it is therefore impossible. They throw money at the farmers and never raise a query. The Cabinet is stuffed with wealthy farmers. Why should they not throw money at the farmers? The standards of probity in the cabinet are such that its members would not be allowed to participate in local government as they participate in central government.
British farmers receive more in financial support each year than British Leyland, British Rail and the National Coal Board put together. As far as I am aware, the Government have not raised a murmur of criticism about that. We should revive the sectoral aid schemes to manufacturing industry to encourage investment. That would involve the restoration of exchange control. It is patently absurd to allow the British capitalist class the freedom to do what it likes with its money because it is utterly irresponsible.
In the early 1970s, when the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) was Prime Minister, he made a famous speech in which he said that everything had been done for the capitalists, but they would still not invest. That is still true today, except that those people invest where they can make a fast buck. They have no patriotism or loyalty to the British working class. They move their money about where it suits them to move it. That is why the removal of exchange control and the resulting free market economy has meant that individual capitalists and institutions have shipped more than £9 billion out of the country in less than three years.
I am not suggesting that we should not allow any capital to go abroad. Exchange control allows just that—the

export of a capital is subject to the consent of the Treasury. Moreover, if we are to export goods, of course we have to move some capital abroad to set up distribution and advisory centres or manufacturing or remanufacturing plant abroad, depending on the circumstances.
The elected Government of the day should have some say in that decision-making. People do not go to the polls to allow the tiny number of people who have capital to make decisions that result in life or death for the people who are cast aside when people in their posh offices decide to close down a factory in Darlington or elsewhere. The people of Darlington have returned a Labour man to this House, because they do not trust the Government. The Government's policies are clearly handicapping their lives by rampantly throwing them on to the dole. That is a continuing outrage. We must restore exchange controls—it is an outrage that they were ever lifted—and we must know what is being done with our available capital facilities.
We must also restore the sectoral schemes. It is significant that in the annual report on the Industry Act 1972 for the year ended 31 March 1982, the sectoral schemes that played such a significant role in improving the position of British industry were all introduced by the Labour Government, but they have not been revived. The wool textile scheme was introduced in two stages—the first by the Government of the right hon. Member for Sidcup, when they discovered that market forces did not work and decided to help manufacturing industry through the 1972 Act, and the second by the Labour Government on 29 November 1976. The Minister may not be aware, because he may not have studied the matter closely, that that scheme was the subject of close scrutiny by the Department of Industry. Research into the investment decisions of the wool textile scheme was carried out, and it was found, not, as was commonly thought, that the introduction of more modern methods necessarily produced a reduction in the number of jobs—although that might be a consequence—but that the improvement in quality because of increased investment preserved our position in some markets and enabled us to keep jobs. Following the application of the scheme, there was a slight increase in employment in the areas affected by it.
It was discovered that the scheme encouraged and induced investment, and many investment decisions were made by mill owners. We must reintroduce such schemes. The ferrous and non-ferrous foundry schemes also encouraged a more efficient foundry industry. In that way, a more competitive position is established for a range of products, because foundry work is basic to the metalworking industries. The printing machinery scheme, the textile machinery scheme and the poultry meat processing scheme were all introduced by the Labour Government, but they have not been reintroduced by this Government, although they are badly needed.
The sectoral schemes will develop through the National Economic Development Council. Labour Government schemes were not developed in isolation from industry but were developed by industry in close consultation with the trade unions. The British Textile Confederation has suggested that a scheme for textiles is both necessary and important. It produced a document, which no doubt the Minister has seen, called "A Plan for Action" dated this month, in which it was suggested that they should have in effect an interest relief grant scheme. The federation points out that other Common Market countries provide some


financial assistance. Unless we become a united states of Europe with a central government, which is not likely and which will be resisted stoutly by the majority of Members of Parliament and the majority of the population, we cannot keep track of all the schemes of government assistance within the Common Market. We cannot give the EC Commission as a matter of right, an immediate duty to expunge all kinds of industrial aids that exist in France and Italy—for example in the Prato district of Italy for textiles.
Therefore, if we are to have any competitive levels we have to recognise that some sort of parity of support is necessary. That is what the British Textile Confederation has suggested. The idea is not new, because the Department of Industry used to have interest relief grants to give preferential treatment to manufacturing industry. That is right.
I have given that one example, but there are other parts of industry that need further Government encouragement to investment through sectoral schemes. The Government are only running two at the moment. The sector working parties also need more encouragement. They were set up to undermine the position of planning agreements, but none the less have provided a great deal of useful information. They have also enabled the employers and the trade unions to come together and establish in some aspects a common assessment and understanding of the position. They have enabled some shop stewards to meet the management for the first time ever in the history of their firm.
However, the position is that the Government are deliberately downgrading the sector working parties. For the first time in the life of British manufacturing industry, these parties examined the capacity of the industry and the potential export targets, set potential domestic market targets, and studied the likelihood of import penetration. In other words, they had looked in a planned way at the position of their industry to see where improvements could be made and what design and development was needed.
However, the Lombard column in the Financial Times of 9 September 1982, written by John Elliot, who is a correspondent close to the Department of Industry, says:
In many ways the TUC could not really have been blamed, if it had voted yesterday to withdraw from the National Economic Development Council and from the council's 50 tripartite industrial committees.
For three years, union leaders have regularly failed to make any impression on Ministers in the council's monthly two-to-three-hour meetings. Their ideas have been ignored, and, increasingly since Norman Tebbit became Employment Secretary, they have often felt insulted during the meetings. They have performed the rituals of consensus with a Government which does not recognise the word and with CBI representatives who for too long have preferred back-door chats in Downing Street to open debate about the decline of British industry.
Sir Geoffrey Howe, Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is chairman of the Council, constantly repeats his belief and support for Neddy and its committees. But his actions rarely support his words. And Ministers, like Mr. Patrick Jenkin, who insist that in Cabinet he argues hard for industry to be given more help, swings loyally behind Sir Geoffrey and the Prime Minister when the Government's policies are criticised in the semi-public council forum.
According to this, the Secretary of State for Industry is arguing in the Cabinet for what I am arguing for tonight. However, in the NEDC he swings behind the Prime Minister who affects the naive, childish and simplistic

view that she always does, that market forces will somehow work their way through and all we need is a bit more competitive spirit.
The scheme for the metal working industries will help to revive the machine tool industry. That is important because the machine tool industry is the industry that makes the machines to make the machines, and unless and until we have a revival in the metal working industries, demand for machine tools will continue to sag. I suggest that any scheme for helping the metal working industries should give preference to purchases within the British machine tool industry, although I accept that the criteria would have to be wider, because in some instances the industry might not be in a position to meet requirements for specialised machinery.
There should be more short-term production help for engineering companies. An engineering manufacturing advisory scheme was introduced by the Labour Government, on a limited basis. It has not been properly developed by this Government, and there is room for more development. Certainly, the spring manufacturers association is particularly concerned that the Department of Industry should provide money for short-term development production problems, instead of long-term research and development. Funds are not available, particularly to help the many small firms in the spring manufacturing industry to overcome short-term problems. No doubt, the Minister will tell us that several spring manufacturers have taken advantage of the engineering manufacturing advisory scheme, but specialised support should be given through the industry's research association.
Secondly, the Government can provide help for manufacturing industry by planning trade. All that I ask the Government to do is to interfere in the free market economy and the free flow of trade, in the same way as they have stopped the free flow of ultra-heat treated milk from France into this country. That has come about, I gather, because the Secretary of State's dog does not like the taste of French milk. In my opinion, that is an entirely superficial reason, and I am sure that one could advance more substantial arguments. In addition to his doggy comments, the Secretary of State expressed concern about safety standards. We have a very open market system in this country, and we always react to something when it goes wrong. Safety standards should be imposed on machinery imported into this country at the port of entry, so that they conform to British safety requirements.
We already interfere in the market system—open trading, as it is called—in textiles, through the multi-fibre arrangement, which as the Minister knows, is not a particularly restrictive arrangement. It actually allows an increase in imports—something that is worrying the textile industry. The basis of the MFA was taken in a year when not all the import quotas were used, with the result that the import levels set by the MFA are an increase to 1982 levels, with a further increase on top of that.
The Government have intervened in the market place. They have not allowed the pressures of world circumstances to affect Argentina. They have produced a credit system for Argentina, to help to prop up that country's economy. They will not allow competitive forces to bring down the Argentine economy. If they can do that for Argentina, they should be able to provide similar assistance to British manufacturing industry.
Frankly, I do not believe that the Government will move much in this direction. We shall have to repeat the Darlington victory time after time until we get a Labour Government. Our Labour policy, which is due to be published next Tuesday, will be seen to have the bones of a policy that will be of real benefit to British manufacturing industry.
I put forward these ideas because I am an optimist. I believe that this Government know the harm that they have done puts them at a disadvantage in an election. They know that unemployment is an important issue. They realise that their selfish notion of dividing the nation by having a minority of people out of work and a majority in work is perhaps not working. I put forward the proposal of wider quota controls in many sectors of manufacturing industry. If it is argued that we can only do this by harming developing nations, I must point out to the Minister in anticipation that by planning trade it is possible to give preference to certain countries, including the developing nations.
We cannot do this easily within the European Community. The Government are committed to the EC in an uneasy and unfriendly relationship, but happily Labour is committed to withdrawal. If the Minister argues that that would affect manufacturing industry because we would lose many jobs, that is not true, because other EC countries see Britain as a large and lucrative market and they would be happy to enter into trading arrangements. We would be outside the dominant political and economic decision-making arrangements of the EC. It is only in this way that we can ensure the survival of British manufacturing industry.
Coupled with that, there would be a release of public expenditure through local authorities and the nationalised industries. Public money should be spent not on maintaining a massive and increasing dole queue but on developing real jobs, the sort of jobs that the Conservatives promised during the 1979 election. On these Benches we want to see the trade union movement involved at all levels in the decision-making process in sector working parties and in the factories that are producing the goods and services.
The restoration of manufacturing industry by providing real jobs and opportunities is important not only for the survival of British manufacturing industry but also for the dignity of our work force. I quote from a letter I received from a person who works in manufacturing industry:
Dear Mr. Cryer,
Please can you help or advise us? I work at … in the … dept, which is a small dept of the firm, …
We feel we are being victimised, and hardly know what we can do about it. Because of the present job situation, we feel we must hang on.
We work on a collective bonus scheme, and until October had good wages, which we were working very hard for.
In October, we were told we had to take a £10 cut in wages, and the bonus rate was dropped accordingly, and although we complained it didn't get us anywhere.
We were promised that there would be no more cuts for 6 months, but starting tomorrow, a new bonus scheme goes into operation, which has been solely devised to ensure that we earn little or no bonus.…
We did join the NUDB and TW Union"—
that is, the National Trade Group of Dyers, Bleachers and Textile Workers—
but that was a couple of years ago, and
the letter says that the owner threatened to close the department down—

unless we dropped out. Everyone was scared of losing their jobs and now there is only two of us still in the union.
Last year we were on short time, and government grants, but things picked up and we have been on full time for the last six months.
She then talks about the boss and the fact that his son is coming in although he is not qualified and does not appear to have any skills. She concludes:
Is there anything that can be done, or is he going to be allowed to trample all over us?
That is a letter from a worker in manufacturing industry. Is that the attitude that the Government want to encourage—a supine work force trampled by the bosses? Or do they want a bright, eager, confident work force able to work in parity with the employer? That is the way we should go, with a confident, dignified work force, with hope for young people in an expanding manufacturing sector. This can be done only under Labour carrying out its commitment to reduce unemployment to under 1 million within five years. Many of the new jobs must be in the manufacturing sector.

Mr. David Stoddart: The House is indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) for raising the issue of industry and what has happened to it and for giving us his ideas for its future. He made an erudite speech, which reflects his great knowledge of the subject, which arises from his experience within the Department of Industry, when he put in a tremendous amount of work to assist the development of industry, and not least the development of small businesses. I have reason to know that he spent a great deal of time touring the country trying to encourage small businesses, with great success.
My hon. Friend talked of the decline in manufacturing industry. It has gone on at a gathering pace over the past four years. Every day since the last election we have seen the loss of 1,600 jobs. Every day now we see the loss of further jobs in one industry or another. We in the Labour party believe that that cannot be allowed to continue. If it is, there will be not only awful social consequences and frustration, but political consequences, too.
As my hon. Friend said, the Labour party's policy has been put to the people of Darlington and been endorsed by a substantial majority, and it will be put to the people in the country as a whole. It is a policy of reducing the mass unemployment that has been with us for too long. The Labour party, when it publishes its policy next week, will be seen to have realistic methods of dealing with the curse of mass unemployment, which has been brought about by the Government's policies.
We have lost at least 2·5 million jobs since the last election. That loss of jobs and manufacturing production could not have been sustained without the boon of North sea oil. But for North sea oil, this country would be in a catostrophic financial situation. Our balance of payments would be such that the standards of living of the people would be reduced as they have never been reduced before. The Chancellor would have had great difficulty in providing some of the meagre reliefs of the last Budget. Indeed, far from providing reliefs, he would have had to increase taxation substantially.
That great boon of North sea oil should have been used for building and rebuilding our manufacturing industry. It should have been used for investment not only in existing plants in existing industries, but in providing the industries


of the future. The Government have signally failed to invest in the industries of the future. By their denationalisation proposals for the Post Office, for example, they are risking investment in the industries of the future. I cannot understand why the Government bring forward such doctrinaire proposals when the need is for public investment in telecommunications and the communications industry generally. That investment will be provided in the last analysis only by the public.
Instead of using North sea oil revenues to rebuild manufacturing industry and industry generally, they are being piped straight into unemployment pay—£15,000 million to 4 million people without proper jobs. It is a crying disgrace that that national asset should be used in that way. Time will run out, because North sea oil is a finite commodity. By 1995 at the latest, on existing estimates, Britain will lose its self-sufficiency. From then it will be down hill all the way unless substantial new reserves are discovered. It is by no means certain that they will be discovered. We have about 12 years to replace the income from North sea oil through manufacturing industry. It is the only way to bring income into Britain to pay for our food and raw materials.
The Government must take urgent action to ensure that investment takes place in our future. That means investment in the industries of the future and also saving existing industries. We hear a great deal about the industries of the future. That is all that some people talk about. But there are existing industries that need investment and need to be saved. It will be no good having an upturn in the economy if we have closed all our steel plants or are unable to produce the steel required for an upturn.
Our industrial revolution was built on the textile industry. There will always be a great demand for that industry. The British Textile Confederation published a document recently in which it was severely critical of Government policies of high interest rates at home and an over-valued currency abroad. These have hurt the industry's ability to export and has enabled its competitors abroad to export great amounts of clothing and textiles to Britain. The greatest threat to the textile industry comes not from the developing countries, but from the EC. The industry is crying out for Government assistance. I sincerely hope that many of the recommendations that have been put forward by the British Textile Confederation will be considered and adopted by the Government.
My hon. Friend also mentioned regional policy. The Labour party has developed its regional policy, which will be published next week. Our policy will not be designed as the policies of the Government are designed—merely to shift jobs from one part of the country to another, from one place with high unemployment to another with high unemployment. That is what is happening with enterprise zones. We predicted that the enterprise zone system would not create new jobs, but would merely shift them from one part of the country to another.
That sort of regional policy will be quite useless for solving the problems of the depressed areas, because it will only do so at the expense of depressing other areas. What is the use of shifting jobs from Swindon to the north-east? We already have high unemployment in Swindon and to shift jobs to the north-east, might help the north-east but it will worsen the position in Swindon.
We want a regional policy which will ensure that new jobs are created and which will give priority to areas with the highest unemployment. I hope that that is the sort of policy that we shall be developing in consultation and cooperation with the trade union movement. I read some headlines in the newspapers this morning about the new accord between the Labour party and the trade union movement. One would think that the Labour party was going to hand over the Government of the country to the trade union movement. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Labour Members believe that the country can be governed only by co-operation and not by confrontation. If we are to gain the support of the British working people to rebuild our economy we shall need real consultation and a real partnership with industry. Believe me, the ordinary working folk of Britain not only have much expertise at their fingertips, which management should give them the opportunity to use, but they have a good deal of common sense, and that is what the Labour party wishes to harness.
I emphasise that the Government's confrontation policies—the creation of unemployment to use as a whip against working people to keep them in their place and keep wages down—will not succeed and are not acceptable to the Labour party. Therefore, we make no excuses at all for making a central plank of our policy cooperation with the trade union movement, industry generally and all sorts of other people so that they can make a contribution to the revitalising of British industry and its fortunes.
I conclude as I began by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley on his speech and on bringing this important matter to the attention of the House.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. John MacGregor): The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) began with a reference to the Darlington by-election. His analysis of the figures is as faulty as his analysis of the problems of manufacturing industry and the strategy that is being pursued to achieve economic recovery, especially in manufacturing. The swing at Darlington is marginal. I fully accept that one cannot translate one by-election result into national terms and it is significant that the hon. Gentleman refused to refer to the Bermondsey result, which was completely different. No doubt he was seeking a crumb of comfort from Darlington.
Goodness knows, he needs it.
Even accepting that by-elections can produce exceptional results, the swing that hon. Members have seen would not mean a Labour Government. I point to the position of the national opinion polls at present. The hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Stoddart) referred to the common sense of the British public. I entirely agree with him. The national opinion polls show that the people of this country do have common sense, are realistic, and understand the relevance and realism of the policies that the Government are pursuing. They have rumbled the policies of the Labour party.
I do not question the compassion or concern, which the Government share, of the hon. Member for Keighley. However, I feel that his understanding and policies are wrong. It was significant—I do not want to return to the past for very long—that he failed to draw attention to what is happening worldwide and to the fact that Britain is in


the deepest worldwide recession for many decades. Unemployment in other countries—which I agree remains intractably high and which we wish to see reduced—has been rising faster than in Britain. As the Chancellor pointed out in his Budget, during the past year unemployment rose by 1.6 percentage points in the United States, 2.3 percentage points in Germany and nearly 4 percentage points in the Netherlands as against 1.4 percentage points in Britain.

Mr. Stoddart: rose—

Mr. MacGregor: Will the hon. Gentleman forgive me if I do not give way? I have listened to a long speech and I have many points to reply to.

Mr. Stoddart: Just on one point.

Mr. MacGregor: Just on one point, then.

Mr. Stoddart: Is the Minister aware that I was recently given an answer that unemployment in this country in the past year rose by 12 per cent., while in France it rose by 6 per cent.? Therefore, unemployment in Britain is rising more quickly than in many other countries.

Mr. MacGregor: The French Government have been pursuing the same short-term and misguided policies as the Labour party pursued in the second half of the 1970s and which have led to so many of the present difficulties. The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that the French Government have had to change tack because the damage that their policies were causing was beginning to affect the long-term strength of their economy.
The background point that I wanted to make was that we were in a less competitive state by the end of the 1970s to face the blitzes and hurricanes of the worldwide recession than most of our major competitors overseas, which had been more successful during the 1970s than we had been in remaining competitive and getting up-to-date in their products and industries. That is the problem that the Government faced. We have had to deal with the worldwide recession and cope with the fact that Britain's competitiveness declined substantially during the second half of the 1970s. Therefore, we have had to tackle deep-seated problems.
It is relevant to point out, as the Chancellor did in his Budget statement, that in our economy domestic demand has been growing at almost 3 per cent. a year in real terms since the spring of 1981. That is a stronger growth of demand than in most other domestic economies.
The challenge is not that there is total lack of demand in our economy, because ours has started to grow faster than in other countries, but to ensure that our recently acquired competitiveness enables us to satisfy the increased demand for products made at home and not for imports.
The hon. Member for Keighley referred to cars, and the motor industry is a relevant case in point. Why did the motor industry decline in the 1970s in the way that he pointed out? There was a huge increase in imported cars because consumers were exercising their choice of preference as to the most recent models, there quality, design and so on. That is why I trust that the hon. Member for Keighley will agree with me that during the past few years Britain has been tackling that problem at its root, and the results are beginning to show through in the new models coming from British Leyland which the consumers are once again buying. Long may it last.
The important point is that the motor industry fell behind in competitiveness and in its models. That is what we are trying to put right. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the reception for recent models is very encouraging. Incidentally, housing starts are significantly up, admittedly from a low base. However, this year saw the highest car sales figures for any January. Therefore, the demand is there and the challenge is to get British industry competitive again.
I shall refer briefly to the overall strategy of our economic policy, because it has been much debated in the House recently. I shall then turn to the strategy pursued in my Department in relation to manufacturing industry. It is vital to bear in mind the overall strategy which dominates the particular measures pursued by my Department. Hon. Members will find that manufacturing industry throughout the country totally supports the Government's overall strategy of reducing inflation and achieving realistic wage settlements.
I agree with the hon. Member for Keighley that wage settlements in the textile industry have been moderate. However, the point of talking constantly about realistic wage settlements is to highlight the fact that throughout the second half of the 1970s, and admittedly into the first year of this Government, wage settlements were too high in both the public and private sectors. That led to the increase in costs, that firms in the textile industry with low wage settlements have had to face. Therefore, the need for realistic wage settlements is as relevant to the textile industry and, for example, to the energy industry as it is to any other industry.
I should also mention the strategy of pursuing lower interest rates and of dealing with the supply side. We have been trying to tackle such matters as restrictive practices, overmanning, the way in which many of our products are not up to date, and the lack of innovation in introducing new technology. Mention was made of encouraging investment, but by far the most significant way in which we encourage investment in terms of tax forgone—one side of Government expenditure—is through capital allowances, the tax system, and so on.
Many international and multinational companies are investing in Britain and providing new jobs in the assisted areas and elsewhere. Often, they are attracted by the investment incentives that we provide through the tax system, which have been substantially taken up. Honourable Members should contrast that strategy with that of the Labour party. Both the hon. Members for Keighley and for Swindon have said that new policies will be announced next week. Indeed, we have already had a substantial foretaste of them from leaks in advance of the Darlington by-election and in earlier policy statements. The hon. Member for Keighley referred to them as the bones. However, from what I have seen of the new policies, they are the dessicated, dried bones of a long-dead dinosaur. The strategy amounts to very substantial reflation, to a whole battery of controls and, as has been said, to co-operation with the trade union movement. The substantial reflation contains several Achilles heels. The analyses that have been put through the Treasury model and that have been made by others, such as the London Business School show, that, if there is no substantial wage restraint, within a few years the outcome will be much higher inflation, lower growth, and even higher unemployment than at present. The higher inflation would be critical and would be the policy's real Achilles heel.
With regard to controls, if the hon. Member for Keighley were to ask British manufacturing industry what it wants, he would find that the last thing, it wants is the battery of controls that we have seen in the past from the Labour party and which seem to be coming through more significantly in the new policy.
The other danger is that if one talks to British industry one finds that small and large firms believe that the policy of reducing interest rates on average to below the levels of our international competitors and keeping them there will be crucial to industrial confidence and increases in overall manufacturing investment.
The policy of reflation that the Labour party is pursuing would lead once again to the rocketing of interest rates and would be extremely damaging to industry's confidence and to the prospects of greater industrial investment.
The strategy pursued by my Department—I am concentrating mainly on manufacturing industry, because that is what the debate is about, and I agree with the hon. Member for Keighley that it is important that we have a strong manufacturing base—is to improve our competitiveness in a range of ways: to switch the balance of spending from supporting the casualties of the past to backing the industries and products of the future, and moving the balance of our expenditure within the Department away from support for the nationalised industries and public sector companies towards expenditure on innovation and new technology.
Expenditure on innovation and new technology should not be thought of, as I think the hon. Member for Swindon hinted, as concentrating simply on new industries and products. Innovation and new technology are just as important for existing industries, including textiles, to ensure their up-to-date competitiveness. I see that the hon. Member for Swindon agrees with me.
It is important to stress constantly that the emphasis on innovation and new technology does not mean concentrating on new industries and high-technology industries, as defined. It means bringing that kind of technology into our existing industries and traditional products.
I believe that it is important, and worth stressing constantly, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for industry did in the Budget debate last Monday, that the Government have moved the balance of the Department of Industry's expenditure progressively towards innovation and new technology.
Between 1980–81 and 1983–84, Department of Industry expenditure on nationalised industries and public sector companies will have declined from about 61 per cent. to 34 per cent. while that on innovation, which applies to all the sectors, including machine tools and textiles, which the hon. Member for Keighley mentioned, will rise from 6 per cent. to 18 per cent. We have been able to achieve that switch to the emphasis on new technologies because, in reducing the proportion spent on nationalised industries and public sector companies, we have also managed to eliminate a large number of losses and make those industries more competitive. It is a fundamental part of the strategy and it is why last May we launched our support for the innovation programme, bringing together the Department's assistance for industrial research and development and for increasing awareness of the new technology and promoting its application.
The maximum grant level was raised from 25 per cent. to 33⅓ per cent. That is the way that the Government have been helping the industries that the hon. Member for Keighley was talking about. The higher rate will be retained at 33⅓ per cent. for a further year beyond May 1983.
In cash terms, our support for general industrial research and development, under the Science and Technology Act 1965 has quadrupled from £57 million in the last year of the Labour Government to £230 million in 1983–84. It is an increase of 135 per cent. in real terms.
In addition, a further £55 million will be available in 1983–84 under the Industrial Development Act 1982 to enable companies to undertake innovative capital investment. The support that I have described is available to all companies in the manufacturing sector whatever their size and location. I am anxious to see small companies taking up these schemes as much as possible. It is encouraging that some 60 per cent. of the support under the microprocessor awareness programme goes to companies in the small firm sector.
I have not sufficient time to deal with all the schemes. I have been talking about global figures and showing the switch of emphasis. One important part, if we are to come up to date, is the robots and flexible manufacturing systems. The House will know the extent to which our more successful competitiors have been applying robots in their industries at a very much faster pace than ourselves. That is why we have introduced the robots and flexible manufacturing systems schemes.
Under the Department of Industry's robot programme, we have committed £8.5 million already to help with costs of 61 consultancy studies, 21 robot manufacturing projects and 82 new robot installations involving 150 robots, all going to manufacturing industry. In particular, I am delighted that, of the 150 robots, about one third are going into small firms. In robot manufacturing, we are supporting new job creation. The expansion of Unimation's robot activities at Telford will eventually create 250 new jobs direct and as many again are expected among suppliers.
There has been a good response to the £35 million flexible manufacturing systems schemes. The sum of £1·9 million has already been committed. It may seem a small figure in relation to the £35 million but the scheme was only launched in June 1982. The hon. Member for Keighley will know from his experience in the Department of Industry that it takes some time for industry to assess its position and to make applications under the scheme. There are in addition 46 projects under consideration involving total costs of around £100 million.
I have not sufficient time to deal with the whole innovation area, but I hope that I have already stated enough to show that the switch in emphasis is substantial and that the increase in funds available for these innovation projects and innovation generally is also substantial and that this is an important way of ensuring that our manufacturing industry remains competitive.
Another key element in the Department's policy is the emphasis that we are now putting on small and medium sized enterprises, basically those firms employing fewer than 200 people. The hon. Member for Swindon tried to pay a tribute to the hon. Member for Keighley for his work in small firms. It is, however, significant how little the hon. Member for Keighley mentioned them in his speech. It is important to underline that a great deal of the


innovation and of the effectiveness and competitiveness of new industries and existing industries will come through the emphasis we are putting on small firms. We have taken well over 100 measures over the whole range of policy activity to assist small firms. There is one I should like to mention because the hon. Member referred to the machine tool industry.
I refer to the small engineering firms investment scheme which I announced in the House last March and which we had to close because of its enormous success when the demand became so great, even after adding £10 million to the original £20 million. The scheme has been necessary for a number of reasons. One of the most important is relevant to our debate and to the analysis of what has gone wrong. It has been necessary because there has been a lack of investment by small engineering firms in the most up-to-date technology over recent years.
Now, because of the blitz of the world-wide recession, many firms find that they lack the profitability to make the investment and cover all the costs through capital allowances. We have therefore had to top up with a 33⅓ per cent grant. I am much encouraged by the tremendous response to the small engineering firms investment scheme last year. Already, under the scheme, 1,400 firms have been made offers of assistance. Already, £10 million has been paid out to nearly 600 firms. What is important to the machine tool industry and what has encouraged me is that nearly 60 per cent. of the equipment orders will be United Kingdom produced. I hope that, under the new scheme, we shall see that take-up by the British machine tool industry continued.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced our intention to allocate £100 million for the new SEFIS, as it is called. In so doing, I believe that we shall bring substantial help to small engineering firms, to the machine tool industry and to the economy at large. I shall announce the details of the new scheme next week.
The hon. Member for Swindon was quite wrong about the Budget. The measures announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor are clear evidence of the Government's continuing action to help industry to cut costs. The measures will help businesses directly by £750,000 million in a full year. Combined with the changes in national insurance surcharge and the national insurance contribution changes announced by my right hon. and learned Friend last autumn, however, the benefit to businesses will be about £1·25 billion in a full year. That comes on top of previous Budgets that have also concentrated on industry.
It is important to bear in mind that the other measures in the Budget, especially the increases in personal allowances, will also substantially help industry. They will help to deal with the problem that many firms have pointed out to me—the difficulty of recruiting because of the "poverty trap". The raising of thresholds will also help in moderating wage demands and by increasing demand and consumption. In that way, even those measures that are not purely and directly industry measures will be of great significance to industry.
On jobs in manufacturing industry, it has always been Labour Governments who have taxed jobs and Conservative Governments who have had to take the taxes off. The previous Conservative Government had to abolish selective employment tax. The Labour Government then introduced—and later increased—the national insurance surcharge, adding to industry's costs a total of £3·5 billion

per year. The substantial reductions already made in the national insurance surcharge are worth about £2 billion to the private sector in a full year.
Interest rates are also highly significant in terms of burdens on industry. The decline in interest rates from the peak of 16 per cent. in 1981 has already increased industry's cash flow by about £1,375 million in a full year. That, too, is important and should be borne in mind when one considers the Labour party programme and the way in which it will push interest rates up again.
Equally important, the 1983 Budget is a Budget for enterprise, innovation and the small and medium-sized firm. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that a further £185 million is being added to the Department's support for innovation programme over the next three financial years, including the sums for the new small engineering firms investment scheme.
The totality of measures taken in four Budgets concentrated on enterprise and small firms represent the most radical change in the tax system in favour of small firms for many years. Increasingly, as the recession clears, the advantages of that will become clear.
I draw particular attention to the change from what was knows as the business start-up scheme to the new business expansion scheme which will run until April 1987. The Budget makes three very significant changes. As more and more small firms, including many expanding ones, become aware of the scheme it will become increasingly important for the improvement of that sector.
One of the great problems in recent years has been the inability of small firms to attract equity investment, which they often need more than additional bank borrowing. In my view, the business expansion scheme will do much to redress the fiscal bias against investment in small firms and to enable equity investment to take place again.
For industry in Yorkshire and Humberside, as elsewhere, the overall strategy is the most crucial factor. Nevertheless, significant sums have been provided in Government financial aid to assist industry in the region. I mention just some of these, including some in the constituency of the hon. Member for Keighley.
Since May 1979, some £200 million has been spent on regional aid to firms and provision of Government advance factories in Yorkshire and Humberside. That aid from the Government has been supplemented by substantial help from European Community funds, including £27 million in loans to firms from the European Investment Bank and £33 million from the European regional and development funds for infrastructure improvements. Listening to the hon. Member for Keighley one would think that nothing was taking place, but these are significant sums. In addition, the region has benefited from many other schemes of industrial support that are available to firms nationally.
Since May 1979, firms in Yorkshire and Humberside have received grants of £33 million under section 8 of the Industry Act 1972. In the same period offers of £ 15 million have been made under the Science and Technology Act 1965 to assist industrial innovation in the region. Many small firms have benefited from the Government's measures to help them, not least by the loan guarantee scheme, under which we have provided about 600 guarantees covering over £17 million in loans to firms in the region.
The Department of Industry's small firms' service can make an important contribution to the prospects of many


small firms in the region. One of the greatest contributions that can be made to helping small firms is the provision of advice at the right time in areas in which the firms do not have expertise. Under the Government the small firms' service has expanded considerable. Small firms have also received assistance from the enterprise agencies and in many other ways. The agencies have been a growth area under this Government.
Throughout the country during the 11 months from April 1982 to February 1983 the small firms' service received over 213,000 inquiries, of which over 22,000 were from the Yorkshire and Humberside region. Estimates suggest that about 3,534 of the inquiries received in the region came from manufacturers. In that period over 350 manufacturers received business counselling and management consultancy from the small firms service in the region.
Yorkshire and Humberside has benefited from the expenditure of £53 million under the urban programme. The catalogue of measures to which I have referred for the Yorkshire and Humberside region totals nearly £400 million. There are many other less direct ways in which public money has helped to sustain the region's economy. The National Coal Board, for example, has invested heavily in the Yorkshire coalfield, and in financing the development of the new Selby coalfield there have been associated improvements to roads and railways. The Central Electricity Generating Board is continuing to invest in the Drax B power station. This shows that a great deal of well-directed help has been going to the region since the Government have been in office.

Mr. Cryer: Why has all the well-directed help resulted in a higher level of unemployment in Yorkshire and Humberside than the national average? As the help is so well directed, will the Minister direct help to the Keighley constituency by restoring intermediate area status?

Mr. MacGregor: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has been listening. I made it clear that the problems that we have been facing included declining competitiveness. Yorkshire and Humberside has a number of industries where that has been a factor. The hon. Gentleman knows that we are concentrating assisted area status on the areas of greatest need. The hon. Member for Swindon said that that would be the effect of the Labour party's new regional policy. In that context, there can be no case for giving aid to Keighley.
We have been taking substantial steps to deal with state aids to textile industries in the other Community countries. I think that the hon. Member for Keighley knows that they have been having their effect. In the past financial year British textile and clothing firms received, or were offered, about £35 million under regional or general assistance schemes operated by my Department and a further £23 million-worth under the Department of Employment's temporary short-time working compensation scheme. These are effective ways of directing aid to the industry. We are carefully considering proposals put forward in "Plan for Action", which was recently published by the British Textile Confederation. As a first step, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry has arranged to meet representatives of the confederation next week to discuss their proposals.

Summary and Arbitrary Executions

Mr. Keith Best: This week marks the launch of a world-wide campaign by Amnesty International called "Murder by Governments". This was launched in Britain last Wednesday by a conference in County Hall, London. The subject matter is a horrifying and gruesome tale of denial of the most fundamental human right of all—denial of the right to live. It is an absolute violation of human rights. Murder is the most serious criminal offence of all and its prohibition is the sixth commandment of the Christian church. It is a crime in all countries in the world and transcends domestic legal jurisdiction in so far as it is indictable in this country even if committed abroad.
It assumes a greater magnitude of obloquy when it is committed by a Government both because it offends the absolute principle that Governments must protect their citizens against arbitrary deprivation of life and because a Government cannot be accused of the crime in the domestic courts.
Such murder is extra judicial in two senses. It is not justiciable in the courts and it is perpetrated against individuals without due legal process.
The killings on which the campaign will focus have the following characteristics. First, they are carried out for political reasons in that the victims are killed because of their real or imputed political beliefs or activities, religion, other conscientiously held beliefs, ethnic origin, sex, colour or language. Secondly, the Government are believed to have ordered, or are otherwise implicated in, the killings and have consistently failed to investigate or to take steps to stop them. Thirdly, the killings are unlawful and deliberate in that they are committed outside the judicial process and in violation of national laws and international legal standards which provide that no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life.
Consequently, excluded from this campaign are killings in self defence, non-political killings, accidental killings, killings within the framework of legitimate use of law enforcement, killings in war not forbidden under international humanitarian law, executions pursuant to the judicial death penalty, ordinary murders, killings by Government agents in violation of an enforced Government policy, and killings by non-governmental entities such as Opposition groups.
The concern of this House is manifested in an early-day motion to be tabled which reads
That this House being appalled at the unlawful and deliberate killing of men, women and children carried out for political reasons by order of Governments or with their complicity in countries such El Salvador, Guatemala, the Philippines, India, Chile and Iran, and at least seventeen other countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America, and offering its support for Amnesty International's campaign against 'Murder by Governments', urgently calls upon Her Majesty's Government to raise its concern to representatives of offending governments in every appropriate forum.
A Government can bear responsibility both by commission and omission, either directly or by illegally taking the lives of the citizens targeted for elimination or for failing to investigate and prevent such killings. The monarch crying
Who will free me from this turbulent priest?
and a Government, such as that in Libya, who officially sanction the murder of political opponents in exile by


declaring them to be legitimate targets for death squads roving the world, are equally responsible for the actions carried out following such exhortations.
A failure to investigate political killings and bring offenders to book also implies a tacit condonation even though the Government may not bear direct responsibility for a killing for which no orders have been issued despite the fact that the perpetrators may be Government personnel.
Amnesty International in its report entitled "Political Killings by Governments", published on 23 March 1983, sets out a chronicle of individual and general cases of murder by Governments in various countries throughout the world. It describes how the facts about many of these cases are distorted or hidden by those responsible. The official cover-up can take many forms—concealing the killing by making prisoners disappear, blaming killings on opposition forces or independent armed groups, or passing off unlawful killings of defenceless individuals as the result of armed encounters or escape attempts.
Despite the amount of evidence that thousands of people, who are believed to have been victims of political killings by the Government of El Salvador since the military coup of October 1979, have been executed by agencies such as regular military forces, special security forces such as the national guards, the national police and the treasury police, the authorities have claimed that any atrocities perpetrated by para-military groups in the countryside are carried out by independent extremist groups or "death squads" out of its control.
This explanation is advanced despite the reports indicating that the so called "death squads" are in fact members of Orden, a nominally civilian para-military unit, or other off-duty or plain-clothed security personnel.
In the Philippines the authorities have commonly responded to allegations of human rights violations by claiming that they are the result of armed conflict and that people reported to have disappeared are described as having gone underground. Those killed by military personnel are said to have been killed in combat. To the commission set up to investigate such killings, witnesses testified that two victims had been taken from their homes by soldiers and the autopsy reports showed that they had sustained several gun shots and stab wounds and that one of them had been strangled. Yet the officer in charge of the particular constabulary unit claimed that they had been killed in an encounter with armed Communists. Evidence from eye witneses obtained by Amnesty and other investigating bodies indicates that a number of victims shot dead in Andhra Pradesh, India, had been arrested and tortured before execution notwithstanding the official explanation that their deaths were a sequel to armed attacks launched on the police.
In some cases, evidence is fabricated. In Colombia, an army patrol entered a ranch in April 1981, dragged the ranch owner and two others from the house and took them into the nearby hills. Their bodies were discovered the next day and bore signs of severe torture. There are reports that the bodies were then placed in a clearing with items which were meant to indicate that they had been guerrillas. An army press bulletin subsequently declared that the men had abushed an army patrol and had been killed in an exchange of fire. In Argentina, Ana Lia Delfina Magliaro was taken from her home and held in a federal police station in Buenos Aires. Her family were then told that she had been transferred by the military police to the city of

Mar del Plata and the family filed a petition for habeas corpus. Two days later they were notified by the local police that she had been "killed in combat" in Mar del Plata. Yet at no time had the girl's family been told that she had been released from custody. The official account of her death is extremely improbable.
In other cases, political killings by Governments can be announced by the authorities as executions. In Ethiopia, for example, it was announced in November 1974 that 60 prominent political prisoners had been executed by firing squad, although one of them had, in fact, been killed in a gun battle. The other 59 political detainees were shot without trial.
Political killings by Governments have been committed in most, if not all, regions of the world and they are not confined to any political system or ideology. 'The tragic examples are legion and the victims, both individuals and whole groups, come from all walks of life, many political persuasions and religious faiths. They may be young or old, judges and journalists, government employees and trade unionists, teachers, students and school children, religious workers, lawyers and peasants. All have suffered death in this appalling manner. Their memorial must be our insistence on publicising this barbarity wherever it is found, and demanding that those responsible be brought to justice or, where no justice for such offences can be found, on the condemnation of international public opinion.
If such killings, which now appear to be on the increase, are to be reduced and, hopefully eliminated altogether in the fullness of a civilised regime throughout the world, the burden rests on us, in countries where people are free and not subject to such a denial of human rights, to mount a massive campaign of public pressure to render such activity unacceptable.
Although there are many sad examples, murder by Governments is difficult to document, not only for the reasons that I have advanced but because independent investigation is often hampered in one way or another. There is also the terrible facility with which Governments can do away with people and yet leave the activity uncertain of proof. Indeed, it is the easiest thing to do. It is far easier to kill and remove people from the face of the earth altogether than to he financially fraudulent and corrupt.
Unfortunately, we in this country, who have such religious freedom, cannot fully comprehend either religious persecution or religious fervour and the preparedness of so many people to die for their religious beliefs. Our lack of comprehension often leads to a failure to react in the necessary manner to persecution and death that is motivated by religious fervour in other countries.
I have received correspondence from the Baha'i community in my constituency and have been distressed to learn from them and from the media of the apparent attempt to eliminate all Baha'is in Iran. I can only hope that where we fail in concentrating on these matters the fight will be taken up increasingly by His Holiness the Pope, who has recently demonstrated such courage and understanding in his visit to central America.
Opportunity here does not admit of mentioning all the certain cases of extra-judicial executions which have occurred around the world. Many of them have been documented by Amnesty International. On 31 January 1983 the United Nations Commission on Human Rights published a report by a special rapporteur, Mr. Wako,


entitled "Summary or Arbitrary Executions". That document is a very comprehensive study although it covers a far wider area than extra-judicial executions.
This problem is not new to the United Nations. The Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities has for a long time reported on this subject under the item "Disappearances and Summary Executions". A study of the Sub-Commission's work over the years shows increasing reports of instances of summary executions. The General Assembly at its 35th session adopted on 15 December 1980 its resolution 35/172 entitled "Arbitrary or Summary Executions". In that resolution the General Assembly, alarmed at the incidence of summary executions and arbitrary executions in different parts of the world and also concerned by the occurrence of executions which are widely regarded as politically motivated, requested the Secretary General that he use his best endeavours in cases where the minimum standard of legal safeguards appeared not to be respected and also to seek from member states, specialized agencies, regional inter-governmental organisations and concerned non-governmental organisations in consultative status with the Economic and Social Council their observations concerning the problem of arbitrary executions and summary executions. The sixth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, meeting in Caracas from 25 August to 5 September 1981, adopted a resolution entitled "Extra-Legal Executions", which deplores, condemns and affirms as a particularly abhorrent crime the practice of killing and executing political opponents or suspected offenders carried out by armed forces, law enforcement or other governmental agencies or by para military or political groups acting with the tacit or other support of such forces or agencies. It also called upon all Governments to take effective measures to prevent such acts.
The General Assembly at its 36th session strongly deplored the increasing number of summary executions as well as the continued incidence of arbitrary executions in different parts of the world, and noted with concern the occurrence of executions that were widely regarded as being politically motivated. Despite these resolutions, the killing goes on, and we in this country must play our part in endeavouring to bring it to a halt.
Compiling the special rapporteur's report involved requests for information being sent to all Governments, specialised agencies and inter-governmental organisations in consultative status with the Economic and Social Council and processing all the replies—a mammoth task. The right to life is the most important and basic of human rights and is given prominence in all international human rights instruments. It is the fountain from which all human rights spring, and if it is infringed the effects are irreversible. By article 14(91) of the international covenant on civil and political rights everyone is
entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law".
That same article provides that everyone has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law at criminal trials and that the right of appeal before a higher court, on conviction and sentence, is guaranteed to everyone. It is disturbing to find so many instances of this article violated in the imperfect world in which we live. Even though executions are carried out after certain

proceedings, the court procedures themselves are so curtailed or distorted that the procedural safeguards are not observed and the information received by the special rapporteur has disclosed the following general patterns. The death sentence is delivered often in the special court, special military tribunal or revolutionary court, which are not bound by any procedural regulations. Executions are carried out without allowing time to appeal to a higher court or to seek pardon or commutation of the sentence. Trials are held in secret in many cases, even without allowing close family members to attend. The accused person is not given any opportunity to defend himself in trials, nor is he represented by his legal attorney.
There are reports of people who are killed outside the country by agents sent by governments after they were tried and sentenced to death in absentia. Persons are not given an opportunity to consult their legal attorney before trial, and in some countries lawyers hired by their friends or families are not allowed to see them. Courts lack qualified judges to preside over trials and are not independent, and mass public rallies are utilised as trials to deliver the death sentence, which is often delivered for acts or ommissions that did not constitute a capital or criminal offence at the time of their commission.
Those were the categories of summary executions identified by the special rapporteur. The evidence he received also provided alarming information about arbitrary executions. The phenomenon of deaths in detention is widespread. Many Governments attributed the deaths in detention or custody in many cases to suicides, attempts to escape, armed resistance, accidents or natural causes. Obviously, the true circumstances are difficult to verify. There is deliberate killing of targeted individuals, massacres of groups of individuals such as at political demonstrations, and the systematic killing over a period of time of specific categories of persons, such as members of political parties, ethnic or religious groups, social classes or trade unions.
There was no response by Argentina to the request for information. According to the testimony of those who escaped from secret detention camps, it is alleged that the victims were abducted by military and federal police, tortured in camps and then transferred after being given injections of a powerful sedative. It is alleged that in some instances those transferred were thrown out to sea towards the south and thrown out of aeroplanes alive. Some dead bodies have been washed ashore. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights examined unmarked graves at La Plata cemetery, found that most of those buried in them were aged between 20 and 30 and that the cause of death was given as destruction of the brain by firearm projectile. In October 1982 a mass grave was discovered in the Aran Bourg cemetery where allegedly up to 400 bodies are buried. In south-east Asia it was acknowledged by the former Foreign Minister Ieng Sary of the Khmer Rouge Government in August 1981 that it was official policy to liquidate the people accused of opposing the regime, and this involved whole sections of populations and families being wiped out. In December 1982, the graveyard was found of 3,000 victims of Pol Pot's regime allegedly herded from the capital of Phnom Penh between mid 1977 and 1978 and hacked to death.
Conservative estimates would put the known victims of summary or arbitrary executions to be at least 2 million persons in the past 15 years and, most probably, many more. These outrages are most prevalent in areas where


there are internal disturbances and where political tension exists. The practice is clearly in breach of international law, of human rights and international humanitarian law but, although in most states it is also clearly against municipal law, the Governments have committed summary or arbitrary executions irrespective of the provisions of their own laws and even of their own constitutions.
I hope that Her Majesty's Government will concentrate their best endeavours in seeking to curtail extra-judicial executions. The history of such matters in countries must be taken into account when negotiating over trade or establishing or continuing diplomatic relations. We must encourage national Governments not only to ratify international instruments on human rights and in particular the international covenant on civil and political rights and the Geneva convention and the protocols but to ensure that they are followed and enforced in their countries. We must continue to publicise the scandal of extra-judicial executions wherever they occur and press for minimum standards of investigation to be laid down to show whether a Government have genuinely investigated the case reported to them and that those responsible are fully accountable. Our country, which is still held in high esteem throughout the world, is ideally placed to draw attention to these matters to the international community and to make a valuable contribution towards their cessation. It is no good merely condemning these activities here unless Her Majesty's Government are prepared to demonstrate to the world at large that they are in the forefront of our relations with other countries.
In conclusion, I believe that the basis of a stable society is one in which there is the rule of law. Most civilised countries have an internal rule of law. We desperately need a more comprehensive and enforceable rule of law for the international scene. In the absence of enforceable world law we have international anarchy where the rule is not of law but of force of arms, victory of the strong over the weak and a mad scramble for more armaments either for the purposes of territorial aggression or greater world influence through threat of aggression or else for defence from it.
This can be no way to govern our planet. Within the past 12 months our country has been to war because there is international anarchy and an absence of enforceable world order which should prevent armed aggression. Ultimately, we have to have a rule of international law for world order and the settlement of disputes through arbitrament in international tribunals rather than by recourse to force of arms. Inevitably, that will mean an international criminal code that will enable a process of law to be instituted against individuals in Government who have been culpable of a breach of that code by perpetrating individual murders or genocide. This, of course, is no new proposal. Ideas of this nature were promulgated and espoused by well-respected and senior statesmen after the last world war. Surely we do not need another to convince us of the essential truth of such views. Until such time as this comes about, however, we must rely on our own Government to press for safeguards for the life and dignity of those who are not in a position to do it for themselves and to ensure that the weakening of the rule of law, which is inherent in the crime of extra-judicial execution, is not only arrested but reversed.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall reply to the debate.
This debate has been a useful opportunity for the House to express its concern and views on this appalling phenomena. It is appropriate, too, that we should have an opportunity to discuss this so soon after Amnesty International launched its campaign against "Murder by Governments" on Wednesday 23 March.
The Government have recently made clear their concern about any human rights violations wherever they occur, and human rights violations are not, unfortunately, the prerogative of any one region in the world or any one political system. It has now become generally accepted that human rights are a legitimate matter for international concern. This is a relatively recent development and is not a view that is publicly endorsed by all states yet. Indeed, it is opposed by some. However, successive British Governments together with other Western countries have consistently worked to get this view more widely accepted. The practice of the United Nations, particularly over the past 10 years, has supported our view, and the United Nations has increasingly expressed concern and tried to take action on countries where there are sustained and severe violations of human rights.
The right to life is a fundamental human right. Extrajudicial killing, or murder, by Governments is a particularly flagrant and breathtaking violation of one of man's most basic rights. The question remains how we can best use our influence to persuade Governments to put an end to this terrible practice. We believe that it is best in this case to work through the United Nations, since it is important that the international community as a whole should be involved, that its authority should be invoked, and that it should be seen to act. If the international community acts together, this is more likely to achieve the right result than if the task is left to a few, generally Western, countries to express their concern.
The United Nations is seized of this problem, which it terms summary and arbitrary executions, and has had strong British support in trying to grapple with this question. When the United Nations Secretary-General last year asked Governments for their views on this problem, the British Government stated our views clearly in the following terms:
United Kingdom believes that summary or arbitrary execution constitutes one of the gravest violations of humans rights, and that protection against such violations constitutes a fundamental obligation of States in the field of human rights. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides for safeguards against summary or arbitrary execution in its Articles 6 and 9 as does Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights to which the United Kingdom is also a party.
The British Government went on to say:
The United Kingdom also believes that where States fail to live up to this fundamental obligation on human rights.. the appropriate United Nations and other bodies should not hesitate to examine and deal with such abuses in accordance with the various relevant international instruments and United Nations Resolutions".
The United Nations Economic and Social Council therefore last year passed a resolution with United Kingdom support which appointed a special rapporteu.r to examine the question of summary or arbitrary executions. My hon. Friend referred very eloquently to the rapporteur's conclusions. This report, prepared by Mr.


Amos Wako, was discussed at the United Nation Human Rights Commission this year in Geneva. The commission adopted by consensus, a consensus which the British delegation strongly supported, a resolution which expressed its deep concern at the practice of summary executions and which extended the mandate of the special rapporteur for a further year. This grave violation of human rights will therefore continue to receive attention, and we shall have an opportunity at next year's commission meeting to consider what further steps can most usefully be taken within the United Nation machinery.
The practice of summary executions not only cuts across any sense of natural justice but is contrary to the universal declaration of human rights adopted by the United Nations in 1948. It is also contrary to the provisions of the international covenant on civil and political rights, which I mentioned earlier. This covenant, which the United Kingdom ratified in 1976, is a legally binding instrument. Unfortunately, only about half the membership of the United Nations have ratified this covenant, and some of those countries that have, act in flagrant violation of some of its provisions. We have, therefore, consistently urged more countries to consider ratifying the convention, and we have urged all countries that have ratified to observe its provisions. At the same time, we continue to seek to ensure that the machinery established by the United Nations to monitor the implementation of the covenant is as effective as possible.
United Nations action, particularly in the humanitarian field, can often provide the best results. For example, in 1980, largely as a result of a United Kingdom initiative, a five-man working group was set up to look into the question of "disappearances" and to examine individual cases. The group is currently chaired by Viscount Colville of Culross who sits in his personal capacity, although he is also the leader of the United Kingdom delegation to the Human Rights Commission. The work of the group has been solely inspired by humanitarian considerations; it aims to provide information for relatives about those who have disappeared and to encourage Governments to put an end to this practice. It has achieved better results than initially expected, and although difficult to quantify it has undoubtedly, by prompt action, also saved some lives. Governments can no longer indulge in this practice in the belief that no one outside the country will notice or care.
We hope that now that the United Nations is seized of the problem of summary executions, and that a report listing countries guilty of this practice has been produced, the Governments concerned will realise that people in the world at large do notice and care.
Outside the United Nations, the British Government also continue to try to find the right means of making known our concern in a way that will achieve improvements. There can be no one answer on how we do that, as the problems differ from country to country, as do our relationships with those countries. In some cases public pressure may be useful; in others it may be counterproductive. Very often when we judge it helpful to make representations these are best made privately, frequently in conjunction with our' partners in the Community. Whether the Government choose to make representations, publicly or privately, must, however, depend on the individual case and our assessment of the likely effect. After all, our aim is to achieve the right result, not to salve our consciences by public gestures if they are likely to have no, or possibly a bad effect.
My hon. Friend mentioned the representations that he had received from members of the Bahai faith in his constituency. I can understand their concern and that of my hon. Friend about some of the incidents that have taken place, involving the deaths and persecution of many of the Bahai community in Iran. Representatives of the Ten in the European Community have made three demarches to the Iranian authorities, most recently on 27 December, to express our concern at the human rights violations against the Bahais. We continue to believe that the best hope of persuading the Iranian Government to respect human rights is to take further action in the United Nations. We must hope that Ayatollah Khomeini's edict of 16 December 1982, calling for the correction of judicial abuses, is an indication that the Iranians will mend their ways.
In conclusion, we believe that publicity such as that generated in the United Nations or the publicity and information generated by Amnesty International is likely to help in bringing pressure to bear on Governments who are guilty of these basic violations of the human rights of their inhabitants. We shall continue to take whatever action we consider helpful to assist in bringing these dreadful practices to an end.

Mr. Ian Lang: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withrawn.

Manchester (Deputation)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —(Mr. Lang.]

Mr. Charles R. Morris: I emphasise at the outset that neither I nor my parliamentary colleagues representing constituencies in the city of Manchester dispute the pressures on the Prime Minister's time, but, by her refusal to meet seven hon. Members, representing constituencies in the city of Manchester, the preening queen of Downing street has delivered a calculated snub to the city and people of Manchester. I and my parliamentary colleagues believe that she has acted in a characteristically insensitive manner, bordering on arrogance.
It was on 13 December 1982 that we first wrote to the Prime Minister asking that she receive a representative deputation from Manchester, comprising civic, industrial and religious leaders, to discuss the critical problems now confronting that city. We were obliged to wait two months for a reply to that letter. Whatever one might think about the handling of correspondence in the Prime Minister's office, in the view of the Manchester Members of Parliament that was shocking deleteriousness.
It was on 4 February 1983 that the Prime Minister finally wrote, suggesting that rather than see her we should see the Secretary of State for the Environment. That may sound a reasonable suggestion to people who are unaware that the Prime Minister had shuffled off a similar Manchester deputation which was anxious to see her in February 1981. At that time her reaction was precisely the same; she suggested that we should see the then Secretary of State for the Environment.
On that occasion the Manchester Members of Parliament, along with civic, industrial, commercial and religious leaders from the city went to see the Secretary of State for the Environment. The most appropriate comment on that visit was made by the Dean of Manchester in reply to a reporter from the Manchester Evening News, who inquired of the dean whether the meeting had been useful. The Dean of Manchester commented:
Blessed are those who expect nothing. They will not be disappointed.
I cannot think of a more appropriate comment from any souce on that meeting.
Against that background, and in the light of that experience, it was arrogant of the Prime Minister to insist that we go all through that futile, time-wasting exercise again.

Mr. Alfred Morris: My right hon. Friend is right to recall that not only political and industrial leaders condemned the shabby treatment that we received in 1981, but people such as Canon Alfred Jowett, the Dean of Manchester, in addition to the words quoted by my right hon. Friend, said that the then Secretary of State for the Environment did not even understand the points that were made to him about Manchester's plight. Why should we be expected to go through that same meaningless farce again? Unemployment in Manchester has more than doubled while the Prime Minister has been in office. Male unemployment in my constituency is now 26 per cent. In the inner city it is more grievously serious. It exceeds 40

per cent. in parts of Manchester, yet even those figures, as I am sure my right hon. Friend must agree, tell nothing like the whole story of our concern. The Government's policy for youth is one from school to scrap heap. They have betrayed a whole generation, and now the Prime Minister dodges this debate. Surely that is a shocking comment on the Government's response to the case that we are seeking to make for the city of Manchester.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for making that point. One needs to bear in mind that the Prime Minister is the same Prime Minister who, following her general election victory in 1979, stood on the steps of No. 10 Downing street intoning those memorable words from the prayer of St. Francis of Assisi:
Where there is despair, may we bring hope".
There is despair among the unemployed in the city of Manchester, especially the young unemployed. It is about time that the right hon. Lady thought of bringing some hope and found time to listen to the plight of the people of that city.
I cannot understand why the Prime Minister remains strangely and voluntarily deaf to any discussion about the critical problems now confronting the people of that city. My right hon. Friend highlighted the problem of unemployment. It is right that in this debate we should seek to highlight what we would have discussed with the Prime Minister had we been given the opportunity.
What are the problems that we were anxious to raise with the Prime Minister? What were we anxious that she should listen to? The most daunting problem, facing Manchester now is undoubtedly the number of people out of work. One is entitled to ask why the Prime Minister remains deaf to our pleas. In the city of Manchester unemployment is currently 22.3 per cent., against the national average of 13.4 per cent. There are 35 people jobless in Manchester for every vacancy on the job register. In Moss Side, a constituent part of the city, male unemployment is 36.7 per cent. In the central areas of the city the unemployment rate is 40 per cent. In the Newton Heath ward of the city the current male unemployment rate is 27.4 per cent. Is the Prime Minister wholly uninterested in those statistics and in the plight of the people searching for work?
I am especially concerned with the plight of youngsters looking for jobs in the city. Their job prospects are bleak and depressing. The number of youngsters under 18 out of work is 42 for every vacancy. What hope and prospects can parents hold out to their children? What frustration are we encouraging in youngsters who have applied themselves to their academic studies, acquired the necessary five GCE 0-levels and two A-levels, only to find themselves as one of 42 applying for every job available? That is the real, heart-rending position faced by the children of my constituents.
We encourage our sons and daughters to apply themselves to their school studies, but at the end of the day the only prospect is a TOPS course or short-term training. I wonder whether the children of Ministers end up on a TOPS training course when they have completed their education. That is the plight of the children of my constituents. The real tragedy is that the Prime Minister could not care less. She is not bothered; she cannot find the time to listen to hon. Members seeking to draw her attention to the problems.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Will my right hon. Friend go further and agree that it is near to contempt for the customs and practices of the House for the Prime Minister to dodge a debate that is fundamentally about her conduct?

Mr. Charles R. Morris: I certainly agree. Frankly, I have a great deal of sympathy for the luckless Minister who has been invited to come and apologise for the Prime Minister's actions and behaviour.
I have sought to highlight the problem of unemployment among adults in Manchester. I have touched on the plight of the young unemployed in that city. I wish now to highlight another sensitive area of concern.
I do not know how many hon. Members have seen the statistics of the problem facing the unskilled unemployed. For workers in that category, there are 870 for every vacancy on the register. An unskilled and unemployed person in Manchester has virtually no prospect of finding a job. That is a scandal. One might take solace if such people were unemployed for only a short time, but the reverse is the case. At present, 36 per cent. of those unemployed in Manchester have been unemployed for 12 months or more.

Mr. George Morton: does my right hon. Friend agree that unemployment, is not our only worry, difficult though it is to see how the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment will be able to answer the points that have been made about that, even with the assistance of the Under-Secretary of State for Industry? There is a range of other issues relating to other Departments, and that is primarily why we wanted to see the Prime Minister. There is the matter of assisted area status, for which my right hon. Friend has been campaigning; the question of the regional patent office, about which we have campaigned to the Department of Trade; the blocking of Manchester's campaign to have the European Trade Marks Office, because the Department of Trade insists that it can only go to London if it is to be in the United Kingdom against the advice of the EC; the regional operations of the Department of Health and social Security; and the stamp duty office in Manchester. A range of Departments are involved and it is completely inadequate for the answers to come simply from the Department of the Environment, although we know of its importance in the loss of rate support grant. Leaving that aside, the Government's economic policies and their effect on Manchester must surely be the direct responsibility of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: I not only agree with my hon. Friend, but I believe that to shuffle off her responsibility and send a junior Minister from the Department of the Environment, who has no responsibility for employment policies, assisted area status and the plight of the young unemployed, to answer the debate is a calculated contempt of the House. It is another measure of the Prime Minister's contempt for the issues that are behind our anxieties this evening.
The real tragedy and reality of unemployment is that it acts as a catalyst and generates poverty. The Prime Minister cannot continue to ignore the plight of so many families in Manchester. In some of the inner city wards of Manchester, 40 to 60 per cent. of the families are in receipt of supplementary benefit. Over 13 per cent. of Manchester's total population currently depend on supplementary benefit because the head of the household

is out of a job. That is the city from which the Government decided to withdraw assisted area status within weeks of taking office.
That was when unemployment in Manchester was 8.2 per cent. Unemployment in that city is now 22.5 per cent. The Government still refuse even to consider the restoration of any form of assisted area status to the city. For those who ask, "Does assisted area status make any significant difference to attracting industry to the city?". I suggest that they talk to the managers of Shell's Carrington plant, which is currently focusing its major investment in Scotland because Manchester is no longer an assisted area. They should talk to the managing director of Victor Wolf Ltd. in my constituency. That company has established itself on the north-east coast because of the attractions that assisted area status gives to companies establishing themselves in those areas. I believe that Manchester's case for assisted area status is unanswerable.
The Prime Minister has on two occasions refused to listen to Manchester's problem. Tonight she has failed to turn up to answer this debate and instead has sent along—I am not being personal to the Minister concerned—a ministerial errand boy to apologise on her behalf. Since the right hon. Lady was elected in 1979 she has studiously avoided visiting Manchester. Her only contact with the city authorities was a glad hand courtesy call on the then Conservative lord mayor way back in August 1979.
That is the sum total of the right hon. Lady's contact with Britain's third largest city during her tenure as Prime Minister. When we ask to see her as elected Members of the city she tries to shuffle us off to the Secretary of State for the Environment, who has no ministerial responsibility to the House for the issues that we were anxious to raise with him.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. I am sorry to stop the right hon. Gentleman, but I hope he understands and realises that this is a half-hour Adjournment debate and that the Minister may wish to answer.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: I accept your strictures Mr. Deputy Speaker, but, quite frankly, until the Prime Minister is prepared to listen to the plight of the people of Manchester, I am not prepared to listen to apologies from the Minister.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Giles Shaw): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With your permission, may I raise a point of order from the Front Bench, which I know is unusual, especially in an Adjournment debate? You have just invited the right hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Morris) to recognise that what he is doing at this early hour is to produce a contemptuous situation in relation to an Adjournment debate. He is now, apparently—

Mr. Charles R. Morris: rose—

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: Sit down, you silly man.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: A contemptuous situation! A contemptuous situation!

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.

Mr. Shaw: Mr. Deputy Speaker, is it not a contempt of the House that in an Adjournment debate the right hon. Member who raises this matter should state that he has no wish whatever to have any Government response?

Mr. Alfred Morris: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Morris) has made it abolutely clear that he wants a response from the Government, from the Prime Minister. How can the Under-Secretary of State possibly speak for the Department of Employment? How can he reply, as my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Moss Side Mr. Morton) said, to questions concerning industry? We have had raised in the debate matters concerning supplementary benefit, and therefore the Department of Health and Social Security. Are, we not, Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Garel-Jones: Abuse, abuse.

Mr. Alfred Morris: —in need of your help and guidance? Should there not be a Minister present who can speak cross-departmentally in reply to this very important debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The subject of the Adjournment debate is the Prime Minister's decision not to meet a deputation of hon. Members to discuss the problems of Manchester. It did not specifically state that it was on unemployment. It was on the general problems of Manchester. It is very unusual for a right hon. Gentleman, with all his experience of the House, not to give the Minister an opportunity to reply from the Front Bench.

Mr. Garel-Jones: Typical unfairness.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: In response to your comments, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have been in correspondence with the Prime Minister for four months. From 13 December 1982 letters have gone backwards and forwards between No. 10 Downing street and me. The Prime Minister knows full well every single issue that Manchester Members of Parliament want to discuss with her.
The Prime Minister has sent the most junior Minister from the Department of the Environment to apologise for her in the debate tonight, and that is a contempt not only of the House but of the people of Manchester. That contempt will not go unanswered as far as I am concerned. Whether I am a right hon. Gentleman or an hon. Gentleman—(Interruption.—I intend to put the case for the people of Manchester. I say to the Prime Minister—

Mr. Alfred Morris: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the Government Whip wishes to make personal attacks on hon. Members, should he not rise in his place? He said "neither" when my right hon. Friend the Member for Openshaw said that whether he was a right hon. Member or an hon. Member, he still had his rights. Should not he be asked to withdraw that remark?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I was listening so carefully to what the right hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Morris) was saying that I did not hear any comments from the Government Bench. However, if the Government Whip impugned the honour of the right hon. Gentleman, I am sure he will withdraw it.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Withdraw!

Mr. Charles R. Morris: I say to the Prime Minister that there is a real world—

Mr. Bob Cryer:: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Since you told the Assistant Whip, the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), that if he had impugned the honour of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Morris) he should withdraw his comments, I should tell you that I heard him say "neither". He said it quite distinctly, and I should have thought that he should withdraw his remark in the circumstances.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Withdraw!

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Since there are only two minutes left in the debate, I think that we had better get on with it.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: rose—

Mr. Garel-Jones: Abuse.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: I say to the Prime Minister that there is a real world, with real people and real problems waiting for a solution to their plight. If, as Prime Minister, she is disinclined to listen to their difficulties, and to those confronting the people of Manchester, she should at least come and see those problems at first hand. The people of Manchester have the ability, ingenuity and talent to respond to encouragement. However, they have not received any from this Prime Minister, who remains characteristically deaf to the very real problems confronting Manchester.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Giles Shaw): The House has listened to an extraordinary Adjourment debate. It will, I am sure, be placed on the record tonight that the manifold problems of the city of Manchester, as represented by the three Members of Parliament present, were as nothing compared with their anxiety to try to demonstrate that the correspondence that they have had with the Prime Minister is significantly more important than the issues to be discussed.

Mr. Alfred Morris: rose—

Mr. Shaw: It will be noted that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Morris), who has been a member of an Administration, together with the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), has the enormous presumption to believe that the Prime Minister of the day will answer an Adjournment debate purely because it happens to be raised by him. He does not seem to take note of the fact that there are two Ministers on the Front Bench: one from the Department of Industry and one from the Department of the Environment. In addition, there is another Government member on the Front Bench, making three altogether. There are three Manchester Members on the Opposition Benches.
The right hon. Member for Openshaw clearly does not take any notice whatever of the enormous sums of money being poured into Manchester by the Department of the Environment. The urban partnerships, the inner urban grants and, the derelict land grants do not matter a rap to the right hon. Gentleman. All that he is concerned about is the fatuity of his attempts to impugn—
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Thursday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at twenty minutes past Four o'clock.